Push for one funding model for all schools

SCHOOLS will receive a standard payment per student across the public and private sectors.

SCHOOLS will receive a standard payment per student across the public and private sectors under a proposal for the biggest shake-up of education funding since the Whitlam era.

The overhaul, recommended by the Gonski review into school funding, will for the first time see funding based on the costs of educating students to an agreed standard.

This standard payment, called a School Resource Standard, would then be supplemented by loading for indigenous students, those in remote communities or students with disabilities or special needs.

The Australian understands the report, by an independent panel chaired by businessman David Gonski and to be released next Monday, recommends the payment level be set by an independent authority similar to the Schools Commission established by the Whitlam government in 1974 to distribute commonwealth funding to all schools.

This would include the states' recurrent school funding, now provided under the National Education Agreement.

If adopted, the system would radically simplify the numerous ad hoc arrangements under which public and private schools are currently funded.

At present, the federal government provides the bulk of funding for non-government schools while the state and territory governments provide most of the money for public schools. Each state and territory has its own funding system and the amount they spend is used as the basis for calculating the level of federal government funding for private schools.

Since 2001, the federal government has funded private schools based on the socioeconomic status of their students, but about half the non-government schools are exempt from the system and funded at a higher level than indicated by their students' family backgrounds. These schools have their funding maintained in real terms at the same rate they received before the introduction of the SES model by the Howard government. If adopted, the model recommended by the Gonski review would remove this anomaly, and provide a simpler and more transparent system, with all schools funded from a common bucket of money rather than separate state and federal budgets.

The report is believed to recommend establishing a reference group of high-performing schools and analysing the funds they have at their disposal as a yardstick to set the school resource standard.

In calculating a school's level of funding, the total resources available would be considered, including funding from all levels of government, as well as private income raised through fees.

Under the proposed model, private schools with maintained funding and high-performing public schools in affluent areas stand to lose government funding. Such areas include the ACT, which has a high socioeconomic community, has one of the best-performing school systems in the nation and spends more per student than other education systems.

The recommendations closely follow the model in a research report commissioned by the Gonski panel from the Allen Consulting Group, which examined the feasibility of a school resource standard and outlined a proposed model. That report recommends identifying a group of schools where 80 per cent of students achieved the minimum standard in national literacy and numeracy tests from 2008 to 2010 and using their resources as the basis for calculating the SRS. It is understood there is discussion that the benchmark should be set higher than 80 per cent.

School Education Minister Peter Garrett would not comment last night on the recommendations from the Gonski review.

Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne said the NAPLAN (National Assessment Program - Literacy And Numeracy) tests were not suitable for determining funding for schools. "The Coalition's test for the government's response to the Gonski review is that it encourages private investment in schools, that it is equitable and that it's objective," Mr Pyne said.

"The Coalition's funding model based on the socioeconomic status of students fulfils that criteria but using NAPLAN data as a resourcing index does not."

Mr Pyne said the proposal would place the power for school funding into the hands of the bureaucracy instead of using independent and objective data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to determine the needs of students.