At first glance, the Gonski review presents an opportunity to correct the funding gap between “winners” (understood as the private schools) and “losers” (understood as the public schools).
And it is timely. The funding of public schools in Australia is a disgrace.
While there is mileage to be made out of characterising private education as servicing polo-playing, trust-fund babies, some Catholic and independent schools are also not funded as well as they should be.
A nationwide problem
Richard Teese has written on The Conversation that low fee-paying Catholics schools are places which use funding to “filter their intakes and outperform government schools”.
I have to confess I worked in one of those schools until 2009 in the eastern suburbs of Perth. The school enrolled whoever it could, supported those who could not pay fees and underperformed in some measures when compared with public schools in the area. Perhaps the West Coast experience is different from the East Coast – an interesting challenge and one that Premier Barnett will be quick to hold against the “othersiders”.
That said, public education in WA shares the problems explained in The Conversation so far: continual school reform, curriculum change, teacher alienation and an accountability culture that has done little to change education standards across the state. The gap between the best and worst performing is growing.
We have a two tier public school system where selective public schools cream off the top public students to compete with private schools on artificial league tables. School choice for the least advantaged remains a myth. Public schooling has become a PR exercise in a marketised, competitive climate.
Slaves to the boom
Many in our least advantaged communities are trapped within the vocationalisation of public schools which privilege preparation for the workplace. That this work is usually semi- or unskilled perpetuates the cycle of disadvantage. In a state undergoing a mining boom schooling for work may seem a good strategy as long the boom continues but demands on the workforce are expected to change. It remains to be seen whether adaptability is a feature of this vocational push.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in WA is remoteness. Remoteness is a strange concept, because a place is only remote when you don’t live there.
Giving people who live in remote areas access to schooling means little when the outcomes continue to be poor. Current funding models pay a loading to the school for each student based on how remote they are. The problem is that this loading (10/20/30%) fails to recognise that remote schools cost massively more than that. Arguably WA experiences the funding gap for remote education more acutely than any other state.
The wrong debate
I agree with Professor Teese that we have been having the wrong debate about education. The debate needs to hold the government to account for the real problem: Australia’s public spending on schools is below the OECD average and the gap is increasing. The problem is not just about how you apportion the funding, it is about putting more money in the system. I would welcome any improvement in the funding model as it pertains to remote schooling regardless of whether it went to public or private school systems.
So I have a simple suggestion. Why don’t we pay what education costs? Rather than pre-determining how much we should spend and then making schools fit that figure, let’s commit to a level of funding that decreases the achievement gap.
And rather than seeing education as a cost, let’s see it as a down payment on our future. The challenge for the Gonski Review is to use funding as a tool to promote equity. Rather than shifting inadequate funding from one school system to another, let’s identify that which we see as outstanding educational outcomes for our young people. Then pay to make those outcomes a reality for all.
And give teachers a break. Accountability, high-stakes testing, performance pay, the devaluing of teachers' work are all strategies designed to get more out of people being asked to do more than they ever have. It is a calculated attempt to distract the public from the fact that politicians are choosing to spend less on education and blaming teachers for the results.
Will the Gonski Report be able to achieve all of this? We live in hope.
Join the conversation
Comments (43)
William Ferguson
Software Developer (logged in via email @xandar.com.au)
"And rather than seeing education as a cost, let’s see it as a down payment on our future"
We said. The reason we have seen such a global improvement in the human condition and our understanding of the universe is due to more minds being able to meaningfully contribute to the discussion. So let's awaken the minds of the future and give them, us, the world, the best opportunities possible.
Rob Crowther
Architectural Draftsman (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
Why don’t we pay what education costs?
Why indeed.
Part of education is sanitation. Has anyone here visited a public school toilet in the last 10 years? My kids just finished school in the mining boom state. I was not far off dragging them when they needed to go to the dunny. Doors that do not close, chipped and cracked basins and pans, and no toilet paper. My daughter told me if you are in a hurry then it takes three to complete the task. One to do the business. One to hold the door closed. One more to go and source some loo paper.
That’s gotta be good for education.
Will the Gonski report be able to achieve this?
I hope so for as a member of the school board, we have been stonewalled for over 5 years on the matter. Apparently going to the toilet has no educational outcome attached to it.
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
Because Jimmy, we are not all rolling in cash as you apparently are. Some of us understand that we pay tax to receive services such as education, some of us pay too little tax and therefore can afford to send their children to rich private schools. Education is for all not just the rich, the nation goes forth with far greater capacity when egalitarianism applies to education. It is time for the restoration of fairness in education for the greater good of all, not just for the good of the few.
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
The public education system in this nation has been run down for at least 15 years, the time has arrived to fund public education at all costs Australia is falling behind because of years of neglect from firstly the Howard government and then the Rudd/Gillard governments using the same flawed method of funding. Public education is used by the majority of Australians, it is the system that governments have responsibility for and needs to have catch up funding and much higher ongoing funding for the overall good of the country.
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
Andrew, I've got a better idea, why don't we just stop funding private schools with government money, then all students can have an equal opportunity at getting a great education. Those with excessive amounts of personal wealth can fund their children into private schools for the purposes of getting better business connections and the rest of us can get a much better resourced public education system for our children, without contributing to our tory cousins excesses.
Kissindra
(logged in via Twitter)
Education is not a cookie cutter one-size-fits-all sector, the LAST thing we should desire is rank and file public schools with no parent choice with reguard to how children are taught. Our governments routinely ignore the advise of educational experts and instead takes up strategies which have proven to cause problems elsewhere. The education departments are a beurocratical nightmare and if your kid happens to be having problems you will get absolutely no help from them, they close rank and support…
show full comment
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I am not convinced that simply throwing money at the problem will fix it. The public education system is like any other public system where failure is rewarded with yet more funds and resources.
Abolish the public system and subsidize the parents who cannot afford to send their kids. You will see a plurality of different schools surface allowing the parents to choose where to send their kids. The power will be with the parents (where it belongs) rather than with bureaucrats within the government machine.
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
Lorna,
These people hate the concept of education for all, they believe it should be exclusive to the rich. They are people who believe that poor people should not have the vote, and that it also should be restricted to the (what they and their tiny minds believe) upper class, they are tories. I'm just playing with them for entertainment. Bloody bogans lol!
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
We are not just another State of the United States of America just yet, where the dog eat dog mentality applies in every aspect of life. If you tories want that education for your children then I'd suggest you do as Rupert Murdoch has done and become USA citizens, I'm sure we will survive here without you.
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
I do prefer the approach of William to Rob's however in saying that I agree with both gentlemen. The internal procedures involved within the State administered Education departments could do with a shake up, and maintenance needs to be performed on a regular basis for all schools facilities including toilets. Funding of public education has relied on a model introduced by Howard and is unfair to the average public student. Funding needs a "once only" catch up boost at the expense of continued funding given to the richest private schools. After all, they do not need an extra swimming pool or an extra gymnasium but public students are in need of basic facilities such as toilet maintenance.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Employers (can't think why but the mining sector in particular springs to mind) need to realise that they benefit directly from the education that their employees receive. Schools and universities turning out "work-ready" people help employees make more profits.
They should be prepared to give more back.
John Nightingale
(logged in via Facebook)
What about all schools private, but no compulsory student fees if the school wants govt funds? Then we'd have a degree of equity as well as choice. There must be a catch in it, because no one with any sense has suggested it.
Tom Bicknell
Journalist (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)
Why do we fund private schools at all? If they want to teach their own curriculum, pick and choose who they allow in, and charge big fees for those 'lucky' few they let in, why can't they pay for it themselves?
They're private companies, not public institutions. Why should they get public funds?
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Actually Tom they don't teach their own curriculum. They do have to be accredited (I was involved in that process, not the most fun pile of paperwork I've ever ploughed through). And inspected. They do have to prepare their students for State examinations.
Tom Bicknell
Journalist (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)
Ah, my mistake! Thanks for the correction.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
You're right that they pick and choose who they allow in though. Not all are academically selective but none are obliged to take any student, nevermind the most "difficult". That's where the whole "private schools outperform" argument falls to bits.
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
Is it Andrew Hack or Liberal Part hack, this is the age old well used tory philosophy that children of the wealthy are somehow superior and as such need superior private schooling. Public education allows for individual learning, private school student generally do better because their school has better resources provided by rich families, you don't get away with that rubbish while I have breath in my body ole' hack. Thanks to Gonski's report the situation should rightly divert some of the funding from rich schools to the public school system, and not before time. Australia should be a nation where everyone gets a fair go, no matter how rich or poor they happen to be.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Thank you Shaun. When you resort to personal attacks it usually means you run out of legitimate arguments.
If you had any clue you'd realize that the Liberal Party is as committed to the largesse of the public system as Labor is.
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
The USA can have their private Universities that are not educated to the same standard as public universities in Australia educate people to. Andrew I suggest you migrate to the USA to discover the truth and take your conservative mates with you.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Yet the fact remains that the vast majority of people, if they had the means, would send their children to private schools over public schools.
It is a shame you are so hostile to opposing views. But if I use your argument, perhaps I should suggest that you migrate to a Communist country. There aren't too many left. Most of them went bankrupt because they ran out of other people's money.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Who on earth would want a Havard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford education. Hrm.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Most Americans can want all they like, but those institutions are so far beyond their financial reach that wanting is all they can ever do. That's the logical end-point of a privatised system.
Shaun Newman
disabled pensioner (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
This time funding will be fairly spent which will make the big difference, finally the poor will get a look in on the rich man's education. About time too.
James Walker
(logged in via Facebook)
Why throw good money after bad?
The public system has *failed*. And hardly surprising - if failing ensures that you'll get bumped up the queue for funding, failing is the smart move.
Rather than punishing successful private schools for actually *teaching* their students, how about encouraging them to expand, create new campuses elsewhere, and replace the joke schools school we currently have?
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Good comments.
It appears to be the elephant in the room to me. "Private schools outperform public schools".
How about abolishing the public system altogether and privatize all the schools so that they have to compete as every other does. Instead of funding the schools directly, fund the parents that cannot afford to send their children to school.
The schools will the see every child as a rate payer and will be keen to both include as many as possible (so as to boost revenues) and will strive for quality while keeping costs down through competition. Reputation will be key.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
James and Andrew - can you give us a quick precis of how that'd work in low socioeconomic areas where there's generational unemployment and distrust of the school system? High Aboriginal populations with numerous social and health issues (widespread deafness for example), sometimes in remote areas and with English as a second or third language? Areas with high refugee populations where students are playing catch-up for years of little or no formal schooling and sometimes have real issues with trauma experience?
Not all kids out there are ideal "customers" - and neither are all parents. But like it or not they're all Australians and the Government has a legal and moral obligation to provide them with the education they need. Those with least are both the hardest to cater for and the ones most in need of help.
How will your system get good, properly trained teachers into those areas and those schools?
Will all these private schools be not-for-profit?
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Hi Lorna,
Most of these examples are edge cases and I'd be careful to use these arguments and model your entire system on the small percentage.
I've suggested to retain the funding through the government. I think if you put the money there the market will step in. I am not suggesting that every child will have the same opportunity. There will always be wealthy school establishments that only those with big money can send their kids. This kind of level of 'fairness' is impossible to achieve.
You have to keep in mind that there are a lot of middle-class families with parents who work their butt off specifically so that they can send their children to such schools. I would be careful to remove any incentives for doing this.
No, they should all be for profit. That is what creates the incentive for the schools to improve on quality so as to be competitive. Market forces can be a force of good.
Andrew
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Andrew - you said "private schools outperform public schools".
Private schools are invariably selective. Some select on academic ability, others are academically non-selective but weed out "problem" students who are likely to be disruptive in class. Public schools on the other hand, MUST provide a place for ANY student who lives "in area". Expelling students who persistently cause trouble or don't turn up is a fraught and lengthy process. Frankly, under these conditions it'd be astonishing if…
show full comment
Rob Crowther
Architectural Draftsman (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
Lorna, I have read your responses and I think you miss a point.
This ability to cast aside the dead wood is a double whammy. If my local Principal is to be believed, her school receives roughly 4 private school expulsions per year. It costs somewhere between 50 to 100K to move them into the criminal justice system.
Andrew refers to this as an edge condition. The ramification is 4 kids cost the equivalent of 25 well mannered children. They also steal about half a teacher when time is considered and disrupt the performance of an unknown quantity of kids who are trying. There is also the factor of property damage that is not specifically accounted for.
So, of course private schools have better performance. They not only get to pick and choose their intake they also get to knobble the public system through their expulsions.
Also, if it was truly an edge condition, the privates would simply sort out their own problems without palming them off to others.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Hi Rob,
That's an interesting point. I don't like the term "dead wood" though. Call me a Bleeding Heart Leftie but I will go around insisting that these kids have value - and I've worked with some pretty challenging kids in very disadvantaged schools. When you discount a child as valueless then what do you expect to happen? Don't forget - these kids are citizens, like them or not.
Here's an extraordinary concept - pay some attention to what they have to say, and be prepared to take at least some of it seriously.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
"How will private schools continue to outperform public schools when they have to take the "low performing" kids that they currently shun?"
They will be paying customers just the same.
The public school system attempts to mix all the kids together so as to try to raise the bottom level. The problem with that is there is a point where you end up holding back all the other kids. Do you really want to run all your schools by the lowest common denominator, ensuring that every student gets a bad education?
The author admitted that he had once worked for a small Catholic school. Honestly, I am not sure why he would be embarrassed at that. But he said that despite all the rhetoric, they go out of their way to accept as many students as possible. Perhaps these assumptions aren't as well founded as you think?
Tom Bicknell
Journalist (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)
Do you genuinely believe that a free market system will in the majority of cases provide a good service to 'paying customers' who are often unable to pay anything but a bare minimum, if anything, and yet require teaching at the most costly end of the spectrum?
How will free market competition deliver a good education system in the district highschool in Mukinbudin, population 281?
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
The same as any business would, operating in a town with the population of 281?
Perhaps the biggest problem is the size of the town and has little to do with public/private. Perhaps it would make more sense for parents to either home-school or move.
It seems to me that these edge-case examples are examples where the public system struggles just the same, if not more, than a private system would. Even if your edge-cases proved that only a public system would work for remote regional areas, why should the same system govern metropolitan areas. And why are my principle arguments being ignored because of edge cases?
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Andrew - your arguments are being ignored because they're purely ideological.
"Perhaps it would make more sense for parents to either home-school or move." Nice.
Sure we could hammer out pages pulling the above sentence apart, and we could do the same with "every student gets a bad education" - but we've got more important things to do, and taking the time to respond to these assertions gives the impression that they have some credibility.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Of course they will be ignored. The same debate gets churned out every 3 years. Schools aren't good enough. Yet the answer is always the same: more funding.
It is difficult for people to think outside the box. Particularly when the decision makers have a big stake in keeping the status quo.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Andrew: I meant "ideological" in the sense that you clearly interpret education solely through the lens of business/finance. The complex realities don't fit into your model so you wave them away with the mantra "the market will fix it". You haven't engaged with any of the issues - it's always back to the mantra, and content-free phrases like "think outside the box".
Independent schools have their place but the fact is, the market will not can cannot provide a socially transformative education for those most in need.
Yes - we almost certainly do need to spend more on education. OECD average would be something to aim for. An educated population is an investment that benefits the entire nation, employers included - why would we want to spend as little as possible on it?
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
I think you are reading far too much into my current job title. I look at this from the perspective of economics as I adhere to mostly free-market economic theory. I have read fairly widely into it and found it is the most sound.
I have been engaging but I don't think you like my answers. Certainly the market will not magically fix every problem but I believe its forces can be used to make it, on the whole, better than what it currently is. It does this by empowering the parents to make the best…
show full comment
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Andrew, I don't see what the phrase "They will be paying customers just the same" has to do with my question.
Which was: private schools are presently able to cherrypick the most able and well-behaved kids. How will they continue to outperform the public schools when they have to provide for these kids?
Also, the public system does NOT mix all kids together. For one thing, there are selective public high schools. These skim off a good proportion of the most academically able. For the rest, streamed classes are the norm. By contrast, I worked in an independent school where all classes were mixed ability.
"Do you really want to run all your schools by the lowest common denominator, ensuring that every student gets a bad education?"
It's impossible to take you seriously when you make strawman arguments like this. Maybe you ought to limit your commentary to business analysis, whatever that is. Best of luck with it.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
As paying customers there is a demand. Where there is demand, markets will supply.
Some schools may cherry pick. That actually happens in the public system at the moment where students live outside the small, local area.
It is not a straw-man argument at all. You are worried that schools will not accept children that have behaviour issues. So what is the alternative? You must force schools to accept these children, many of whom do not want to be at school and will be disruptive in classes. Hence, the lowest common denominator is catered for.
It is disappointing that you resort to personal attacks. I have stake because I went to public schools myself. I have a stake because I may end up sending a child of my own through whatever system happens to exist in the future. I have a stake because I pay the taxes that you are demanding I relinquish to go towards funding education.
For your information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_analyst
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Also - I worked in public schools for 8 years. Are you saying I wasted my time? Those former students of mine now studying for PhDs - how do you explain how they made it through a "failed" system?
Do you guys honestly know so much about public education?
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
You are putting words in my mouth.
If you read all the articles on TheConversation they are all saying the system is not working for one reason or another. They all generally accept that children who go to private schools are getting better outcomes.
You also need to consider that every child is different. Some will be more suited for large private schools whereas some will be better in smaller schools. Plurality is created by market forces and consumer demand. It is not created through the public system where each child's education is trying to be packaged and distributed identically like a McDonald's cheese burger.
Tom Bicknell
Journalist (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)
People generally accept that private school students score better on standardised tests (whether standardised tests are actually a good way to evaluation children's education is a whole extra can of worms).
People also usually accept, since we're talking sweeping anecdotal generalisations at this stage, that private school students have more trouble in first year university that public school students, because they've been taught to a test, not taught to learn independently.
Andrew Hack
Business Analyst and Full-Time Law Student UNDA (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Another reason why I think the plurality of different schools brought by the market will achieve a better education. Consider that the only way to get into one of the public universities is through UAC which is based 100% on test scores (from 'standardized' tests).
Yet, University drop-out rates are excessive.
The Uni I attend (a small Catholic Uni) looks at a myriad of criteria when selecting students much like they do in the US. I think it's brilliant