Opinion & Commentary
Opportunity for major reform
The Gonski report exemplifies the adage that one should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The report demonstrates that it is possible to create a school funding system that is acceptable to most, even if it does not meet their ideal.
First, the report’s good points. The proposed funding model is simple and logical in conception. If implemented as described in the report, it would transform the education debate in Australia, providing much-needed transparency and consistency in allocation of resources to schools.
An integrated system which incorporates all schools and all sources of funds, the Gonski model would replace the 18 funding systems currently in operation with a single, yet still flexible funding mechanism. At the centre of the model is a resource standard that takes account of outputs Opportunity for major reform as well as inputs, acknowledging the now accepted wisdom that school resources do not always predict school performance.
Best of all, the model is studentcentred, shifting the focus from the demands of schools and systems to the individual needs of children. This is a momentous change, particularly for some state school systems such as in NSW, where funding allocations seem to have no rational basis.
Where the Gonski model falls short of the ideal is that it is not entirely sectorneutral. Non-government schools are still discriminated against, for no other reason than they are non-government schools. Full public funding for a nongovernment school to the level of an equivalent state school is available only in very few circumstances. There is no provision for mainstream “free schools” like in the United Kingdom – nongovernment schools that are entitled to full public funding on the condition that they do not charge fees and have open enrolment policies.
Another point of divergence from the ideal is the Gonski model’s retention of a community “capacity to pay” approach to means-testing non-government school funding, rather than using the school’s actual private income. The report recommends instituting a revised version of the SES (socioeconomic status) method of assessing the wealth of a school community and the appropriate level of public funding.
There are two difficulties with the capacity to pay approach. It is vulnerable to the “ecological fallacy” of assuming that any individual family’s SES can be estimated by the average SES of the area in which they live. Additionally, in a truly universal model, all schools – government and non-government – would be subject to the same assessments of the private income available to them. If “capacity to pay” is the metric, numerous public schools would have their public funding proportionally reduced and, like nongovernment schools, be compelled to charge tuition fees.
Although a few brave souls have ventured the idea that state school parents with the means should be expected to make some contribution to their children’s school, public school fees remain controversial.
The Gonski review committee’s decision to retain a “capacity to pay” approach for non-government schools alone is a compromise position to avoid this issue, and one with which independent schools seem largely to be content. Catholic schools have a slightly dimmer view of the SES mechanism, but seem more concerned with maintaining an adequate level of system funding, rather than funding parity per se. State school advocates have been similarly disposed to a favourable view overall.
The widespread positive reaction to the Gonski report bodes well for the future. It will be a great disappointment if this opportunity for major reform is squandered. School funding is important; it is not just a side-show. Funding and governance provide the foundations upon which other aspects of schooling depend, including quality teaching. A final resolution to the debate over dollars would be a turning point for schools policy in Australia.
Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
