Opinion & Commentary
A tax credit system should be the basis for funding education
There is not much for parents or schools to get excited about in the education policies of either of the major parties. As usual, both have taken the middle road, with one leaning slightly toward facilitating parental choice in schooling and the other leaning slightly away from it.
Presently, funding revolves around schools instead of the people they serve—children and families. Full subsidisation is available only to children in state schools. The increasing number of families who seek an alternative—for whatever reason—face financial penalties. This is a monopoly in anyone’s language.
In the state school monopoly, everyone gets a raw deal. State schools get a raw deal because they are dependent on a centralised state department to make all their decisions for them. They have little autonomy in terms of teaching and curricula, the teachers they hire and how they reward the good ones, or how to spend their money to maximise effectiveness.
Non-government schools get a raw deal because they receive less public subsidisation than state schools. This is because, and only because, they are governed by community organisations instead of the state. It has little to do with the financial circumstances of the parents. If this were a proper criterion for school funding, it would apply to all schools, not just non-government schools.
But most of all, families get a raw deal. Those who are able to pay for non-government schooling face a double whammy—they pay once in taxes and again in fees. Those who can’t are powerless. There is something deeply inequitable about a funding system that accords choice only to those who can afford it.
There are twice as many high income families with children in state schools as there are in non-government schools. Why is a wealthy family entitled to a fully subsidised education in a state school, when an average family is denied this just because they want something different? Clearly this is unfair.
The real problem with the Commonwealth and state governments’ funding of schools is that it fails to take the most important step—funding the child instead of the school. That is, to adopt a system that does not try to achieve parity between schools, but instead seeks equity in parental means.
If it is understood that education is a public good, and therefore should be publicly funded, all families should be entitled to the same amount. If there is to be any differential funding, it should be on the basis of family income, not on the type of school.
Such a system has many advantages. First, it extends greater freedom of choice to all families, regardless of means.
Second, it allows families to spend their own money, which makes schools accountable to them and reduces the costs of government ‘churning’.
Third, schools will have more flexibility and autonomy to innovate and to provide the best possible education. In fact, schools would be compelled to do this to attract and retain students.
A funding system that treats all schools equally does not mean the end of public education. The majority of non-government schools have religious affiliations. Others, because they are new, may represent a risk to some parents. Families who want a secular education and who have faith in their government will continue to make state schools their first choice.
Likewise, if state schools and non-government schools are given an equal opportunity and incentive to excel and prove themselves, the educational opportunities of all children will be enhanced.
About the Author:
Jennifer Buckingham is a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies and author of Families, Freedom and Education: Why School Choice Makes Sense.
