Where Should Commonwealth School Funding be Going?

by Roy Martin
Federal Research Officer
Australian Education Union

Changed Landscape of School Funding

The school funding landscape has undergone major seismic shifts since the Coalition came to power in 1996. There is growing evidence, such as that produced in the Senate report on Students with Disabilities, (Commonwealth, 2002) that private schools, both Catholic and Independent, now have resource levels above – well above - those of public schools.

Additionally, the current philosophy that ignores a school’s private income and capacity will worsen the situation. There is now no “drag” on elitism. Despite having been given more Commonwealth subsidy allegedly to help them become cheaper and more accessible, it appears that many of the elite schools are actively raising fees. This enables them to increase their elitism, and this no longer affects their funding.

This fits in with modern theories of “social exclusion”, which argue that at the wealthy end there is “voluntary exclusion” – people who seek to isolate themselves from mainstream society. The elite end of private schooling now mirrors the “gated communities” of new housing developments for the wealthy. Current funding policy ensures Commonwealth subsidy of such voluntary social exclusion.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are no constraints on the opening of private schools which become “needy” and dependent on government subsidy to operate. The capacity of governments to ensure an adequate resource level for all students is thwarted by the laissez faire attitude to creating schools with no check on financial viability.

Beyond Control

The private school sector is now beyond the control of government policy. Despite the huge cost to the Commonwealth (probably over $5 billion a year by the time of the next election) and the fact that the majority of so- called private schools are subsidised to over 80% of their operating expenses, they are able to operate out of the reach of any overall schooling policy directed at the national interest, social cohesion, social justice, and greater equity.

The open ended nature of the Commonwealth funding guarantee means that expenditure is now also beyond the control of the government.

At the same time, research such as that in PISA (Lokan, Greenwood, Cresswell, 2001)
clearly indicates that the national imperative must be to direct money at the 20% of lowest achievers, who are found pre-dominantly in lower SES groups and in public schools. This group also suffer from social exclusion, but in this case it is involuntary.

One way of posing the problem of funding is to argue we must shift the money from funding voluntary social exclusion to over coming involuntary social exclusion.

Regaining control

The task confronting any more enlightened future government is to produce a funding policy which regains control of school policy and allows the government to operate it in the national interest. It should be designed to create greater equity rather than exacerbate existing inequity, and bring Commonwealth school funding back into the tool bag of government policy options so that it can again become a force for social mobility, social justice and the national interest.

The Policy Levers

Such a future government will need to develop an integrated package across planning, funding and accountability to rein in private schooling and ensure the re-integration of schools policy into the national interest and its own policy objectives.

• Planning

The ease with which new private schools can now be opened sends an important signal about a government’s attitude to schooling. It symbolises the policy emphasis on “choice” rather than quality and equality, and on the “right” of parents to opt out of mainstream society and a national schools policy. Whilst ever schools are allowed to open at the whim of small groups, religious schisms, and individuals, the government will be left unable to facilitate adequate resource levels across all schools. As it brings up resource levels in some schools, new schools emerge with more demands for needs to be met.

This is epitomised by the Commonwealth Establishment Grants. Why should a school that does not yet exist have an entitlement to a grant that an existing school is not eligible for, without going through a planning process to ascertain that it is needed and viable? Why should a grant be given if a student moves schools, but not if they stay where they are?

Similarly the guidelines for the Commonwealth Emergency Assistance Grants have become so slack that it is now used to insulate private schools from their own mismanagement and prevent them being subject to the very “market forces” they claim to be their strength!

It is not possible for schooling to be properly planned whilst the expansion of private schools is not controlled. It is not viable to have one sector able to decide where it will operate, and how many and which students it will take, whilst the other copes with all the fluctuations in enrolments and takes everyone who shows up.

It is an absurd waste of public money for the state or territory government to have to provide schools for all whilst Commonwealth policy actively encourages distortions in their planning process.

Therefore the opening of new private schools must be made subject to planning and conditions.

• Funding

The fundamentally flawed and inequitable philosophy behind the SES must be tackled and replaced with a national vision of schools as an agency of social justice and transformation.

A new funding system should direct more money to schools where students are disadvantaged, and less to schools where students are already privileged.

In order for the substantial Commonwealth expenditure to influence outcomes rather than merely maintain schools there should be a substantial shift from recurrent expenditure to targeted programs. Public schools (especially those with the greatest need) and any genuinely needy private schools will gain from this. It is pointless having a minor percent age of the education budget directed to disadvantaged programs if the major share is supporting a system of schooling that ensures that those with the least need and most likely to succeed operate at the highest resource levels.

• Accountability

The best estimates indicate that over 80% of private schools receive, from government subsidy, over 80% of the equivalent funding of public schools. In return for this considerable hand out of public money, it is reasonable that they be expected to serve the needs of public policy.

Their funding and financial operations should be open to public scrutiny and reported to Parliament. To argue that they are covered by the principle of “Commercial in Confidence”, as DEST does, is an absurd abuse of public funding.

However, the major area where they must be made more accountable is in regard to the connection between government objectives and specified outcomes.

Over the last 30 years they have all been given more than enough money to have resource standards equal to, in fact superior to, public schools. (This is confirmed by the Senate Inquiry mentioned above). That in some cases they do not (for instance, Catholic student teacher ratios are still below those of public schools) is evidence that they fail to spend the money correctly. Over the decades funding given on the basis of the needs of existing students has been used it to build more “needy” schools and reduce private effort. Governments must stop pouring money into buckets that have holes in them.

Most importantly, whilst ever they “two pocket account” (cost shift their own money whilst being accountable only for Commonwealth money) there is no transparency and the public are subsidising their equestrian centres and other excesses.

The spending on “promotions” and advertising must be brought under control. The public should not be expected to fund an over supply or growth of private institutions, and the money is better spent on achieving educational outcomes than institutional growth.

Conclusion

The role of the Commonwealth government in schools must become more than simply maintaining the existence and funding the growth of private interests. Commonwealth schools policy must again be made to serve worthy national ambitions, interests and goals in partnership with the states and territories.

References

Lokan, Jan, Greenwood, Lisa, and Cresswell. John (2001) How Literate are Australia’s Students? ACER: Melbourne.
The Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee (2002), Education of Students With Disabilities. Commonwealth of Australia.

Printed in the March Edition of EDUCARE