Opinion & Commentary
A Fair Go for all Schools
It is possible to deceive people without telling lies. In support of their campaign against the federal government’s education policies, an Australian Education Union advertisement in The Australian Women’s Weekly says, ‘The current Federal Government spends only 32% of its education funding on the 70% of children in public schools’. This is true, but what the AEU doesn’t say is that state governments spend more than 90% of their much larger education budget on children in state schools.
When these amounts are combined, parents who send their children to a state school receive more public funding than parents who send their child to a private school, even if they have the same income. This is a statement of fact and there are no exceptions to this rule.
The amount of public funding a family receives depends not on their family income but on what type of school they choose. Therefore, a $50,000 a year family which sends a child to a private school receives less government funding than a $100,000 a year family which send a child to a public school. This is clearly inequitable, yet precisely what government funding policies for school education amount to.
'How can we devise a system that treats every family and every child equitably?'
Supporters of compulsory public education might claim that since the first family chose to opt out of the public system, their situation is of their own making. However, this is a false understanding of the concept of choice. True choice exists only when the options are unconstrained. In this case, the family which does not want a state-provided education faces a financial penalty for seeking an alternative.
How can we devise a system which treats every family and every child equitably, which
allows both the state and private systems to flourish, and which provides real parental choice? Several possibilities have been proposed over the past decades but, despite their appeal, none have been seriously considered. The best of these is a system of tax credits.
Currently, people pay taxes, and the state and federal governments fund schooling on their behalf. In combination, the state and federal governments give one amount to state schools and a lesser per student amount to private schools. Under a tax credit systempeople could claim their education expenditures against their tax bill and pay their school fees directly to the schools, bypassing the government.
To avoid disproportionate expenditure on education at the expense of other publicly funded goods and services, the credit might be capped. For example, the maximum claimable amount might be set at the average cost of educating a child in a state school.
'A funding system that values all types of schools does not mean the end of state education'
To allow for lower income families who pay less tax than the credit threshold, the tax credit could be ‘refundable’. That is, such families would receive a cashable allowance to make up the difference. Extended families, friends and businesses might also be allowed to claim education tax credits to help out low income families. Students with special educational needs might be allowed a larger tax credit.
This system has several advantages. First, it extends to all families the freedom of choice that is presently available only to families who can afford private tuition fees. Second, it allows families to spend their own money, which makes schools more accountable to them and reduces the costs of government ‘churning’. Third, by granting all families the same basic level of public assistance, whatever their income or chosen school, it is fairer for all families. Last, all schools will be compelled to prove themselves worthy to their students.
A tax credit system would also expose the value of extra expenditure. Research in the United States has shown that there is a ceiling above which expenditure on education has minimal effect. If, for example, a private school were to charge $5,000 more than the amount of the maximum tax credit, yet a nearby state school achieves similar academic results with only the tax credit amount, parents would decide whether the private school is worth the extra expense. Those parents who decide that cricket pitches and rifle ranges are worth the extra expense have the right to pay for it.
A funding system that values all types of schools equally does not mean the end of state education. The majority of private schools, including the newer low-fee independent schools, have religious affiliations. For parents who want secular schooling and who have faith in their government, state education will continue to be their choice. Likewise, if state schools are given the opportunity to excel and prove themselves, the educational opportunities of all children will be enhanced.
About the Author:
Jennifer Buckingham is Policy Analyst with the Taking Children Seriously research prgramme at The Centre for Independent Studies.
