Liberal education: only the
rich need apply
By Kenneth Davidson
Is it any surprise that a Coalition plan will deliver
more money to privileged schools?
I think the Howard Government has a third-term agenda.
It is to further erode the Commonwealth commitment to
public education and public health.
It would be unfair to call Howard's vision Menzian.
Sir Robert Menzies was a product of his times. He was
a builder with a strong, Scottish-inspired commitment
to education. It was Menzies who translated Walter Burly
Griffin's vision of Canberra into a national capital.
Menzies ignored the fact that the states had responsibility
for universities. His government took over planning
and funding responsibility for higher education.
Howard abandoned his 1996 election promise to at least
maintain Commonwealth funding for higher education.
Instead, his government cut higher education funding
by 20 per cent or $800 million. Now the universities,
the main engine of economic and social change necessary
to prosper in a globalised economy, are in deep crisis.
Howard's visions for health and education are consistent:
an abhorrence of universal systems in which everybody
pays through the tax system for a quality service that
all classes are happy to use.
The overwhelming preference by Australians for Medicare
has been abused since 1996 by gross distortions in the
tax system, and by a shift from universal to age-rating
for private insurance. The goal: to stampede the middle
class into an expanding private health system by making
clear that the Coalition will continue to screw down
on funding the public hospital system.
Similarly, education. Commonwealth funding is being
switched from public to private schools to reinforce
middle-class predilections to acquire educational advantage
for their children.
This is bad educationally and bad socially, but it's
brilliant wedge politics. Stir up incipient middle-class
resentment about paying taxes in order to finance a
residualised public health and education system that
the middle class is becoming increasingly unwilling
to use.
The Coalition is the great residualiser under the rubric
of high principle (freedom to choose in the case of
education) or financial rectitude (government can't
afford to pay for high-tech medicine in 2042).
Hence the two kites flown last week by Peter Costello
(the further residualisation of health) and on education
(the paper prepared for the Liberal Party think-tank,
the Menzies Foundation).
The paper on education was rejected by the new Education
Minister, Brendan Nelson, but it may be read as an ambit
claim to test public opinion.
The authors say that most government schools are ``safety
net'' schools. Why? Not because they are under-funded
and under-resourced, but because they are operated under
a stultifying, centralised, bureaucratic control that
excludes innovation, competition and parental involvement.
The solution offered? Equality of funding, which just
happens to mean more money for non-government schools
allocated in a way that will give the greatest amounts
to the wealthiest independent schools.
Funny isn't it? The per-student funding gap from all
sources in favour of non-government schools is $1400
under present arrangements and is expected to grow to
$2200 in 2005, based on Commonwealth figures.
According to the Menzies paper: ``The amount of government
support for students' education should be based on the
average cost of educating a student at a government
school, adjusted upward where required according to
a schedule of costs based on educational need. Parental
contributions to tuition fees and education expenses
should be tax-deductable.''
If this outrageous ambit claim on behalf of mainly rich
parents was met by the government, the effect would
be to widen the average resource gap between government
and non-government schools from $3500 now to $4500 in
2005 - and cost revenue about $3 billion a year.
Why? If additional resourcing is not the answer to the
problems of government schools, how is the additional
public funding proposed for non-government schools going
to improve them?
Well no, it's not the money, it's the principle. According
to the paper: ``It is not possible to reconcile a commitment
to choice and a commitment to `free' education without
an equal amount of money to students with similar educational
needs.''
So it is all about choice. According to the paper, all
parents should have the right to choose, and poor parents
will be just as willing as wealthy parents to exercise
choice. But under the Liberal proposals, the chances
of the poor getting a quality education would be even
more problematic than now.
Choice of what? Not everybody can buy a ``superior''
or ``exclusive'' education. Most purchasers of a private
education see their purchase as a ``positional good''
designed to buy a better position on the socio-economic
ladder of life. Some want their religious beliefs passed
on without the contamination of a diverse student population.
Why should the taxpayer fund these choices? Even now,
the majority of the population want a quality public
education for their children, some because they believe
in an inclusive education system and others because
they can't afford a private education.
Far from widening choice, the Menzies paper is about
re-enforcing privilege and increasing socio-economic
inequality. As such it is contemptible education policy
for Australia.
This article was published in THE AGE on 22/4/02 and is reprinted
with the kind permission of THE AGE.
Kenneth Davidson is a columnist for THE AGE and co-editor
of DISSENT magazine
DISSENT magazine can be found on www.dissent.com.au