Opinion & Commentary
Homework Needed on School Funding
The fracas over federal government school funding documented by the media in the past few weeks presents a compelling case for a complete overhaul of the school funding system, both state and federal. The current arrangements are cumbersome and complicated, and cause destructive divisions and conflict between the private and public school sectors.
With the focus on the federal government’s proposed new funding arrangements, the much larger role of state and territory government funding seems to have been completely forgotten. The fact is that when state and federal government funding for schools are combined, average per student public funding for non-government schools is substantially less than that for government schools.
Comparisons between the increase in federal funding to high-fee independent schools and to public schools in similar areas, while striking, are patently unfair. For one thing, they compare extremes. For another, the reference point is the increase in funding rather than the absolute level.
'The current [school funding] arrangement is cumbersome and complicated'
It may be true that the increase in federal funding to Newcastle Grammar is greater than that for, say, Newcastle High School, but this does not take account of the base amount of funding these schools receive from both state and federal governments.
Even including the extra $1126 per student in federal funding Newcastle Grammar would receive in 2004, per capita Commonwealth government funding for a secondary student would be $2959. State government funding would bring the total to around $3500 per capita. If this is held up against the average amount of $7865 per secondary student provided for government schools in the 2000-01 NSW state budget estimates, the comparison is again striking, but this time the public school is the clear winner.
Furthermore, when all funding sources are combined—private and public—there is very little difference in the average expenditure per student in government and non-government schools. If this is the case, why are so many public schools so clearly under-resourced? This is a systemic problem that both state and federal governments must address as a matter of urgency.
Ultimately, however, any resolution of the current funding debate is only a temporary solution. As long as there are two separate systems of funding controlled largely by different levels of government with different agendas, the government and non-government school sectors will be pitted against each other. Such divisions are destructive, wasteful of precious time and resources, and divert energies from the more important pursuit of educational excellence.
The pointless conflicts that have recurred over the past year, and for many years before, could be avoided if Australia had a single system of school funding that does not discriminate according to the education provider.
'Pointless conflicts could be avoided if Australia had a single system of school funding'
One option for a common system of funding is through tax rebates. Families would be able to spend their own money on education, rather than ‘churning’ it through government departments. A tax rebate scheme for spending on education—private or public—could be extended to friends, families and even businesses. For poorer families, choice could be exercised for public or private schools though bursaries equivalent to a tax rebate approximating the average cost per student of a public education. Such a system could be progressive, and therefore satisfy equity concerns.
School choice, where school funds are directed through parents, has many potential benefits. Parents will be empowered to become involved in their child’s education, and to make sure that their money is being well-spent. Since funding would be dependent on enrolments, schools would be compelled to provide a quality education in order to attract and retain students. Schools or systems of schools would have the autonomy to diversify and to innovate. Admittedly, this could not happen overnight, but it is time to seriously consider how and when such a system could be implemented.
It must be acknowledged sooner rather than later that the old paradigm of ‘free’ public education versus user-pays private education is obsolete. The arguments for one-size-fits-all schooling put forward by public education advocates, including the NSW Director-General of Education, Dr Ken Boston, are also becoming irrelevant as more and more people realise that the government does not own the right to provide their child’s education, any more than it has the right to provide their food and clothing.
The inescapable fact is that parents are demanding an education other than that provided by the state. Presently, the number of parents who can vote with their feet by leaving the public system is restricted by the public schools’ monopoly on funding. Without these artificial constraints, public schools may still prove to be the choice of the majority, but the fact that public education advocates are so vehemently opposed to putting their system to the test speaks volumes.
About the Author:
Jennifer Buckingham is Policy Analyst with The Centre for Independent Studies.
