‘Surely we can’t fail twice?’
Chris Bonnor, retired Australian principal, education writer, speaker and advocate:
It is terrific that we are going to get a second Gonski review, as long as we learn from previous mistakes. Gonski Mark I taught us about equity and why we won’t lift the country if we don’t lift the strugglers. But we didn’t do it!
The first review was dogged by Labor’s mismanagement, the Coalition’s lack of interest and the antics of vested interests. A second review might work if all these players keep their distance. But it will be much harder. The problems unearthed by the first review have worsened and new ones have emerged. Our schools are even more socially and educationally divided. Lifting the strugglers is never easy, less so now.
And little of this will happen unless there is cooperation between governments – including joint funding arrangements. We also have to stop over-investing in advantaged schools without any gain in student achievement – it is a massive waste. Much of that is new, and bigger.
So many questions and even more elusive solutions. But at least we have a chance to get it right – surely we can’t fail twice?
‘There’s pea-and-thimble trickery here, I think’
Carmen Lawrence, former Western Australian premier, former federal Labor minister and Gonski review panel member:
Although the lack of detail in the Turnbull government’s school funding “package” does not allow for a careful, systematic assessment of its likely benefits and harms, what is clear is that the announcement was meant to signify – as was the higher education announcement of the previous day – that despite the cuts, it would have been far worse under Tony Abbott; so thank your lucky stars.
However, what is clear, is that there is no commitment to a systematic and agreed formula for providing extra funds where there are aggregations of disadvantage, one of the most important recommendations of the original Gonski panel. Nor is there any commitment to implement one of the core recommendations: to establish an independent body to regularly review and set resourcing standards, indexation and loadings (the proposed national schools resourcing body), and no mechanism to ensure state and commonwealth governments are jointly engaged in reaching conclusions about funding school programs over the longer term.
Far from ending the funding “wars”, this approach means they’ll continue to be a predictable, acrimonious feature of our federation. As it stands, the proposal also represents a significant cut to funding over the forward estimates, with most of the changes towards greater equity being made well after the next election.
There’s pea-and-thimble trickery here, I think.
‘Taking money from overfunded schools is brave but the right call’
Peter Goss, school education program director at the Grattan Institute:
The announcement on school funding is welcome. The Coalition has set out a 10-year goal of every school being consistently funded by the commonwealth. Importantly, the Coalition will increase federal contributions to government schools from around 17% to 20% of the “student resource standard”, a substantial boost.
How will it affect individual schools? While the announcement is light on detail, it appears most schools will get more funding; some overfunded schools will have their funding frozen; and a small handful of very rich private schools will lose money.
Taking money from overfunded schools is brave but the right call. These schools have been on a good wicket for too long. If the sweetheart deals were not overturned, it would cost the commonwealth budget around $1.5bn over next 10 years.
State and territory governments are expected to continue contributing to school funding but their contributions are not tied to the student resource standard in same way as under the previous model. That makes some sense, allowing states to choose how much they want to invest in schooling.
Of course the details need to be looked at closely but on first look this clear, positive approach could be just what we need to get us past the squabbling on funding – a key hurdle so that we can move on to bigger issues that will really drive improvements in school education.
‘This new review is only a delaying tactic’
Meredith Peace, the Victoria president of the Australian Education Union:
We still do not know how schools will be funded next year. All we have is another review and a promise for a funding increase over 10 years. There is already a plan to lift all schools to the minimum resource standard – they are the six-year agreements signed with states in 2013 and Malcolm Turnbull needs to honour them.
Cutting the last two years of Gonski funding will cost schools $3.8bn and hurt kids across the country. The worst affected will be the most disadvantaged and at-risk children. Schools can’t wait 10 years for the resources their students need. A student in Year 4 today will have left school by the time this funding is delivered.
If Turnbull can afford to give companies a $50bn tax cut he can afford to give students the support they need to succeed at school.
The funding delivered so far is already lifting results. David Gonski said that schools are doing great things with their extra resources – so why does Turnbull want to deny them the last two years of funding?
This new review is only a delaying tactic to avoid giving schools the funding they need.
This review is only to look at how money is spent, not the amount. It is walking away from the principle of the federal government working with states and territories to properly resource schools. There has been no consultation with schools or state governments on this. Not a single state supports scrapping Gonski funding.
‘The transition period will leave many students shortchanged’
Jim McMorrow, former senior adviser on school funding at national and state level:
It is promising to see the Turnbull government finally commit itself to a basic framework focused on an explicit standard of resources for all schools, relative to their needs, consistent with the original Gonski review.
But the 10-year transition period for all schools to receive the share of the resource standard to which they would be entitled will leave many students shortchanged. Those entering secondary schools in 2018 will have completed their schooling before the transition period ends and without receiving their funding entitlement.
The national approach envisaged by Gonski 1.0 appears to have been abandoned and replaced with a “take it or leave it” position with the states by laying down only what share the commonwealth would contribute towards the achievement of the standards.
As the commonwealth will continue to underwrite the public funding of private schools, students in government schools will continue to be largely dependent on state governments for the realisation of their funding entitlements against the resources standard. This will almost certainly perpetuate resource inequalities between the sectors.
The foreshadowed review by a new Gonski panel is welcomed but should lead to the creation of an independent school resources body as originally recommended.
‘The model now proposed would entrench huge inequality’
Tom Bentley, policy adviser who drafted the terms of reference for the original Gonski review:
This announcement is a big and welcome shift. Yet it will not lead automatically to more equitable and effective distribution of funding to Australian schools. As David Gonski observed, the latest package is another step towards national consensus on “needs-based, sector-blind” school funding.
But will it take us closer to making it a reality? The model now proposed would entrench huge inequality by locking in the commonwealth’s role as “minority” funder of government schools and “majority” funder of nongovernment schools, rather than taking shared responsibility for achieving transparent, needs-based funding across all schools.
The federal Coalition was the bitterest opponent of the architecture proposed by the original Gonski review. It now relies on that model – the schooling resource standard (SRS) enacted by Julia Gillard – to argue that some schools are overfunded.
If the transition to an SRS can be achieved more quickly and efficiently, that would be a good thing. But simply trying to tidy up the commonwealth’s funding role, and limit funding growth to real and modest increases over 10 years, will not achieve the original reform goal: funding equity for all students, across all schools and all systems.
So, the Gonski 2.0 review must grapple with the hard questions and the hard evidence about transparency, impact and equity of distribution, and seek to move the ball further up the field.