Opinion & Commentary
Report card for schools
For school funding fetishists who just happen to have eight or 10 hours to spare, the research reports released recently as part of the federal government’s school funding review are well worth a read.
Although the four reports, all commissioned by a Labor government, were produced independently, there is a great degree of agreement among them. All four were largely favourable towards decentralisation, choice, non-government schools, and private investment – a positive sign that significant, modernising reform is possible. These might not seem earth-shattering conclusions for people outside the government, but they represent a tectonic shift in public education policy.
Furthermore, none sounds the death knell for school choice.
A report produced by a consortium made up of the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, the National Institute of Labour Studies, and a consultancy firm called the Nous Group has generated the most controversy by linking school choice policies with the problem of concentrated disadvantage in some schools. The Nous Report does have anti-choice overtones and some ambiguities but, like the other reports, it does not recommend reducing school choice options to mitigate the problem of concentrated disadvantage.
For example, on the one hand, the Nous report acknowledges the potential positive effects of choice-generated competition and explicitly states that it does not ‘propose any kind of system that infringes on parental choice or which enforces any quota’ to address disadvantage.
On the other hand, the report makes a slightly vague reference to ‘re-directing resources’ from some ‘well-resourced’ schools. This screams ‘hit list,’ but it is unrealistic and is never mentioned again. No sane politician would touch a hit list with a barge pole. It also contains a comment about being ‘mindful of wider community benefits ... irrespective of personal considerations around school choice for one’s own children.’ Parents don’t make educational decisions for their children based on what is best for ‘the community.’ Parents know that makes no sense.
To an extent, choice and equity are at the heart of any discussion of school funding policy. But they are not opposing goals, and equity should not be the pursuit of the lowest common denominator. Equity is not just about outcomes, it is also about opportunity. If some students do not have the opportunities that others have, the solution is not to reduce the opportunities of the haves but to increase the opportunities for the have nots.
Jennifer Buckingham is a Research Fellow with the Social Foundations Program at The Centre for Independent Studies.
