Gonski Report released
2nd April 2012

In the following and on the ABC's The Drum I argue that the Gonski school funding report, if implemented, will undermine the autonomy and financial viability of non-government schools.

After nearly two years of analysis and deliberations, over 7,000 written submissions and hundreds of face-to-face meetings with stakeholders and interest groups throughout Australia the Gonski school funding report was finally launched yesterday.

Given the time, effort and cost, one would have expected that the report would finally resolve the much-vexed question of what funding system should replace that existing socioeconomic status (SES) model, due to expire at the end of 2013.

Resolving the issue might also have been expected given Prime Minister Gillard's repeated mantra that the Government's education revolution is central to her agenda and that there is no more important issue than raising standards and ensuring that all students achieve strong outcomes.

Such is not the case. In fact, as detailed by Minister Peter Garrett, in his speech at yesterday's launch, what Australian parents and schools now face is a further period of consultations, meetings, discussion and uncertainty.

The reality is that the ALP Commonwealth Government has put the Gonski report on the back-burner and, instead of deciding what its response will be, has simply bought itself more time in the hope that its political capital will improve and that it can postpone any political and community backlash over the funding model.

It's understandable why Gillard and Garrett refuse to finalise the Government's response. Many of the recommendations in the Gonski report, if implemented, would financially penalise and undermine the autonomy of non-government schools.

Under the existing socioeconomic status (SES) school funding model, non-government schools are not penalised for raising money at the local level as the amount of government funding received is linked to a school's SES profile. The Gonski inspired Schooling Resource Standard, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that levels of government funding will be reduced by funds raised locally, such as school fees, monies from trusts and philanthropic sources.

At the moment, non-government schools, compared to government schools have a large degree of autonomy and flexibility. In arguing that any government funding must be linked to outcomes such as NAPLAN and any other government imposed conditions, the Gonski report undermines that freedom.

In addition, the recommendation to establish School Planning Authorities to authorise "planning for new schools and school growth" smacks on the old New Schools Policy - designed to restrict the growth of non-government schools if such growth adversely impacted on nearby government schools.

By giving state governments control of allocating funding to independent schools there is also the problem that the level of funding to non-government schools will be decided by the very authority that competes against such schools for enrolments.

Schools are already suffering under the bureaucratic, inflexible, micromanaged model of education epitomised by the Government's education revolution. Expect more intrusion and compliance costs if the Gonski paper is accepted as it argues for increased monitoring and accountability.

By identifying equity as its prime consideration, and arguing that disadvantage is concentrated in government schools the report, in effect, argues that money must be re-directed from non-government schools to government schools.

It's no secret that governments around Australia, except for those that are resource rich, are finding it difficult to balance budgets, hence, the failure of the Gillard Government to commit to Gonski's request for an additional $5 billion in spending. The reality is that the quantum of government funds available to non-government and government schools is finite and given the report's argument that priority should be given to disadvantaged students, concentrated in government schools, the likely outcome will be that non-government schools will have to make up the shortfall. Especially, those low SES non-government schools that will now have to contribute at least 10 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard from locally raised funds such as school fees.

It should be noted, on the other hand, that Gonski recommends all government schools, regardless of how resource rich they are or how much money they raise locally, should receive the full amount associated with the Schooling Resource Standard.

Forget the fact that according to OECD research Australia, compared to other OECD countries has a high level of social mobility, mainly because of our education system. Research also suggests that socioeconomic disadvantage is not the main factor determining whether students achieve success or otherwise at school.

Also forget the fact that non-government schools, compared to government schools, are more effective at overcoming educational disadvantage and ensuring that students achieve better results than what otherwise might be expected.

According to critics like the Australian Education Union and left-of-centre academics, Australia's school system is riven with inequality and disadvantage and matters are only made worse by the fact that over 34 per cent of students attend non-government schools.

Non-government schools, so the argument goes, only serve the wealthy and the fact that they exist causes government schools to underperform.

The statement in the report that the purpose of any new funding model must be to "reduce inequity of outcomes" best illustrates how the report has swallowed the 'cultural-left's' argument that priority must be given to so-called disadvantaged government schools at the expense of Australia's Catholic and independent schools.

While all accept that education should provide equality of opportunity, on the basis that all students deserve a well-resourced and funded education, the argument that there should also be equity of outcomes justifies penalising those students and parents who, through hard work and sacrifice, are able to afford non-government school fees.

In her maiden speech, when she first entered parliament, Prime Minister Gillard complained that it was unfair that students in so-called wealthy independent schools in Melbourne's eastern suburbs outperformed working-class and migrant students in her western suburban electorate.

When education minister, Julia Gillard continued to argue that government school students, because of class, ethnicity and family background, deserve priority funding and positive discrimination in areas like tertiary entry.

It shouldn't surprise that the Gonski review, that she established and set the terms of reference when education minister, has come to the same conclusion.


Responses to this Post



Archived Posts

> Tame the black dog
> Non-government school win the day
> National curriculum review
> Cultural-left rules education
> Fix rowdy classrooms
> Beware the black dog
> Meritocracy good - OK
> Overcoming depression
> Rudd government removing barnacles
> Purpose of education
> Judeo-Christian values ignored
> Myths, fables and legends
> No more victimhood
> Gillard wrong to copy Blair
> Media bias against non-government schools
> Direct Instruction best
> Cultural literacy rules
> UK curriculum back to basics
> Bonus pay for teachers - a bad idea
> Non-government schools in danger
> Gonski a threst to school funding
> test
> Gillard's education revolution a failure
> School choice good
> Why gays/lesbians should not marry
> Garrett endorses school choice
> Gonski research papers a danger to non-government schools
> School funding and politics of envy
> Wheeler Centre public/private school funding debate
> Julia Gillard fails as Prime Minister
> Mad as a cut snake as insulting as meow!
> Wheeler Centre school funding debate
> Gillard budget 'F' for education
> Non-government schools deserve funding
> Rude students destroy teaching
> PM Julia Gillard not a social conservative
> My School 2.0 will be used to cut funding to non-government schools
> Gillard cannot be trusted on school funding
> 'F' for teaching standards
> Australia - celebrate Western heritage and Christian tradition
> Rudd/Gillard education revolution - fail!
> Non-government schools promote equity
> Non-government schools promote equity and success
> Faith based schools have the right to discriminate
> National curriculum should not be compulsory
> Gillard Government drops education revolution
> Gillard cannot hide her socialist past
> Gillard's funding promise cannot be believed
> Myths and lies about school funding
> Give all schools autonomy and promote school choice
> ALP can't be trusted on school funding
> Islamic curriculum one sided and biased
> Julia Gillard's Geography new-age and PC
> Julia Gillard left-wing and as guilty as Rudd
> Julia Gillard - political opportunist
> History wars
> ALP's education revolution flawed and counter-productive
> New York example has failed
> national testing educationally unsound
> High social mobility in OZ
> I often have doubts about..
> History curriculum PC and dumbed down
> national curriculum English C+
> Gillard refuses to support non-government schools
> testing and ranking schools is flawed
> Similar to Australia, where many..
> School league tables bad
> Published in Education Review..
> Is there an educationa..
> In the following article posted..
> The problem of badly behaved students..
> Extract from book in Weekend Australian..
> School autonomy the way to go
> Julia Gillard, the Commonwealth..
> Why I left the lefties
> Why I am a conservative
> Why the Bishop is wrong on faith and rights
> test2

Sign in and have your say


Latest Blog

2nd April 2012

In the following and on the ABC's The Drum I argue that the Gonski school funding report, if implemented, will undermine the autonomy and financial viability of non-government schools.After nearly t...
Read Full Post!


$20.00 plus $6 postage
(within Australia).

Latest News

1st January 1970

Read entire article...

Sign up to our Newsletter...