JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

New feature Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings View Demo

Hi there! Beta version

National Times

Surplus before schools as Gonski report decries student disadvantage

Bianca Hall
February 20, 2012 - 3:06PM
David Gonski with School education minister Peter Garrett. Mr Gonski's report into schools funding has been released.

David Gonski with School Education Minister Peter Garrett. Mr Gonski's report into schools funding has been released. Photo: Brendan Esposito

The government has put achieving a surplus before tackling structural disadvantage in Australian schools, despite the long-awaited Gonski report warning that the gap in student opportunities was leading to falling performances.

The landmark review into Australian schools funding - the most rigorous into the sector since 1973, released today - recommended a $5 billion investment in Australia's government and non-government schools.

But the figure was based on 2009 estimates, meaning the cost in real terms would be significantly higher today.

GONSKI REPORT AT A GLANCE

It comes on the back of warnings that Australian students are falling behind their counterparts in Asia, and there is "significant gap" growing between high- and low-performing students.

"There is also an unacceptable link between low levels of achievement and educational disadvantage, particularly among students from low socioeconomic and indigenous backgrounds," the report found.

It showed the effect of disadvantage on students' opportunities, with 60 per cent of children who are not proficient in English, and about 30 per cent of indigenous children and those living in "very remote" areas considered "developmentally vulnerable".

In 2009, 56 per cent of children from low socio-economic backgrounds completed year 12, compared with 75 per cent of children from high socio-economic backgrounds.

The panel found that the funding between government and non-government schools should be better balanced, recommending a new "schools resources standard" (SRS), which would allocate a base funding rate for each student, with additional loadings for areas of disadvantage. Under this model, schools with a high proportion of indigenous, low-income or disabled students would be funded at a higher rate.

Governments would contribute the entire SRS funding for government schools; the level of funding directed to private and independent schools would be based on the schools' anticipated capacity to pay, but with a minimum 20-25 per cent government contribution per student.

"On the basis of the determinations made by the panel for the purposes of the modelling, the results indicated that if these arrangements had been implemented in full during 2009, the additional cost to governments would have been about $5 billion or around 15 per cent of all governments' recurrent funding for school that year."

And Mr Gonski's report highlighted the low proportion of funding the federal government now contributes.

"Based on its current proportion of total funding, the Australian government would bear around 30 per cent of the increase. How the additional cost is actually borne will need to be discussed and negotiated between all governments."

Rather than commit to any of the recommendations or findings in the review, the government will instead embark on another round of consultation. This is in addition to the more than 7000 submissions received, 39 schools visited and 71 education groups visited as part of the 18-month review process to date.

Businessman David Gonski was commissioned two years ago by the federal government to lead the wide-ranging review of funding for schooling.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard warned today that any changes to school funding models must be sustainable and take into account the budget challenges of Australian governments.

''We need to make sure any new funding model is sustainable over time and fits within government budgets,'' she said.

Her comments followed those from School Education Minister Peter Garrett who said this morning that there would "absolutely not" be a multibillion-dollar cash injection to Australia's education sector as a result of the report.

"We've always said that we're going to bring the budget back in to surplus [and] I think that's the most important thing that we can do at this point in time," he said.

In the absence of a firm funding commitment, the government has instead indicated its willingness to investigate alternative funding streams, announcing the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education, Jacinta Collins, had been given the task of working with the philanthropic sector in an attempt to secure funding.

The government, which was handed the report in December, provided a four-page "initial" response to the lengthy review today. One page of this response was a summary of the government's education initiatives since 2007.

The federal government has committed to ongoing indexation of Commonwealth schools funding.

But it refused to guarantee that it would contribute the recommended 30 per cent of the $5 billion in additional funding.

"The model proposed would impact on all existing arrangements and school funding providers and has significant policy and financial implications for governments," the government response observed.

"For those reasons it is important that we take the next steps in this reform process thoroughly and with care ... The Australian government is committed to returning the budget to surplus in 2012-13 and to ongoing fiscal responsibility. State and territory governments also face fiscal challenges, as do parents who do not want to see school fees rise beyond their reach."

In another blow to the panel's findings, the government appeared to reject calls for greater capital funding of state and non-government schools, which the Gonski review said should take the form of grants for specific major works and infrastructure projects.

"There is a need for an expanded stream of Australian government capital funding for both the government and non-government sectors," the review found.

The government poured cold water on this finding.

"In some areas, the Australian government believes that the scope of proposed new funding contributions may be too large," the government response states.

"For example, on capital spending, the Australian government has recently completed the largest ever program of capital investment in Australian schools. While we are open to continued discussion about the most effective way to provide capital funding for schools, we do not envisage the significant expansion of the Commonwealths capital funding role."

The federal government's Building the Education Revolution capital works budget was $16.2 billion.

– with Judith Ireland

twitter Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU

72 comments so far

  • This headline is just ridiculous, seeing this report will not take effect until AFTER the time period that the surplus is predicted to be reached. There is no comparison between the two, as Julia said, it is not a case of either/ or. There is no reason we can't have both.

    Perhaps this should have been written after the whole press conference was watched.

    Commenter
    DIDI K
    Location
    Prahran
    Date and time
    February 20, 2012, 1:46PM
    • It is typical of the Media - the headline has no relevance to the truth about the surplus.

      The recommendations will not take effect until 2014 - it is about time the facts were accurately reported.

      Commenter
      zacca
      Location
      adelaide
      Date and time
      February 20, 2012, 2:15PM
    • Good point. Though it does raise the question why P. Garrett was on the ABC today answering pointed questions about whether the government would invest the five billion needed with the stock surplus response: "We are committed to delivering a surplus". At least he seemed to be linking the two, and implying that we could only have one.
      Perhaps Rudd ain't the only one who needs to get on the same page...

      Commenter
      Heisenberg
      Location
      Townsville
      Date and time
      February 20, 2012, 2:28PM
  • Bloated middle managers and petty mendacious charlatans - these are the hands that hold our childrens future and education.

    Later generations of Australians will curse us - and they'll be right to do so.

    Commenter
    IRG
    Location
    Date and time
    February 20, 2012, 1:56PM
  • Education is an investment, not a cost. Increasing spending on education would result in a pay off for this country many times greater than getting a bit of black ink on the budget bottom line.

    If we put more funding into education we might have a population clever enough to see through this moronic obsession with a budget surplus.

    Bit of a Catch-22, really.

    Commenter
    Redsaunas
    Location
    Date and time
    February 20, 2012, 1:57PM
    • Either what you say or the alternative:

      Burger flippers with PHD's.

      Australia currently has a jobs shortage in some industries like mining, how many of those jobs require University level education?

      Bit of a Catch-22, really.

      Commenter
      SilverTail
      Location
      UpperNorthShore
      Date and time
      February 20, 2012, 2:14PM
    • @ SilverTail
      Mining accounts for a tiny fraction of the work force. And Australia will be around long after the mining parasites have taken their loot and split.

      And education isn't just about PhDs. But let me tell you this: I'd rather live in an 'over-educated' country than an under-educated one.

      Commenter
      Redsaunas
      Location
      Date and time
      February 20, 2012, 2:46PM
    • @SilverTail
      The story was about schools, I didn't see any mention of PhD's. Literacy and numeracy is important whether you're studying a PhD or doing an apprenticeship.

      In regards to the mining industry I believe the skills shortages are primarily in the high end jobs; engineers, geologists, geophysicists, as well as some trades like diesel fitters. There are plenty of people willing to drive a truck for six figures.

      Commenter
      Nathan
      Location
      Burwood
      Date and time
      February 20, 2012, 3:03PM
  • Why don't they forget the surplus and do something useful by improving the funding.
    They are on a path to destruction when the election comes. Why not leave a useful legacy?

    Commenter
    Des
    Location
    Perth
    Date and time
    February 20, 2012, 1:57PM
    • Because a surplus makes them (politicians) look good in front of those all powerful 'ratings agancies', you know the one's that gave the sub prime loans AAA backing. By not spending our taxes, they get a surplus....... But it isn't only education that suffers

      Commenter
      shemp
      Location
      melb
      Date and time
      February 20, 2012, 2:10PM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

More Related Coverage

Gonski report at a glance

1:53pm Gonski recommendations to the federal government on schools funding

A real chance to change the lives of disadvantaged children

2:22pm The long wait for the Gonski report is finally over, but those who care about education in Australia will be waiting a while longer to see any new school funding system.