Gonski reforms at risk of failure to launch

TWO camps have emerged in the Gonski wars. One camp says it's all about the money.

The "I Give A Gonksi" campaign gives the impression that the proposed school funding reforms represent a big, fat cheque for public education. The implication is that if you don't "give a Gonski", you don't care about schools.

The other camp says money doesn't matter at all. People in this camp argue that since previous funding increases for education have not measurably improved performance, further funding increases will fare no better. Some members of this camp say funding reform is pointless and the only policies worth pursuing are those directly related to improving teacher quality.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in between. Money is not everything, but it's not nothing either. At the most basic level, schools need adequate and stable funding to operate effectively. Within certain parameters, additional funding used in the right way can be very beneficial.

But funding reform is about more than the size of school budgets. It is about creating the incentives and conditions for schools to use their resources effectively. It's about making sure that taxpayer dollars are going to the students and schools where they can do the most good.

Better selection, preparation and professional development of teachers will be the key to improving education in this country, but funding reform is more than a sideshow. It is widely acknowledged that the way schools are funded now is too complex and often arbitrary. Public funding comes from multiple sources, each with its own set of accountability requirements. Different arrangements for different school sectors have created ongoing grievances and distractions from the real work of education.

Hoping to resolve this problem, the review committee led by David Gonski undertook to design a new funding system for all schools. The review committee's proposal had a clear rationale - funding should be calculated according to the needs of children - and tried to strike a balance between the competing goals of individual and social equity. In a model favouring individual equity, every student receives the same amount of funding for their education irrespective of family circumstances or the school they attend. In a model favouring social equity, funding is not evenly distributed; disadvantaged students receive more funding. It is not easy to reconcile both these approaches, and the Prime Minister's promise that "no school will lose a dollar" made the task even more difficult.

A "no losers" clause has been the Achilles heel of the current system of funding for non-government schools (the SES system) and is now bedevilling the Gonski reforms. Because of the "no losers" clause, the proposed model could not have a cost-neutral objective and could not be implemented without a large increase in the total funding quantum. If the pure application of the model, no matter how cleverly or carefully designed it is, reduced any school's funding, it would be unacceptable. This explains the long, arduous and secretive processes taking place in Canberra since the publication of the Gonski committee's report in February last year. The model is being tweaked and massaged to make sure the numbers it churns out are politically palatable before any detail sees the light of day.

In the past year, the NSW and Victorian state governments have developed new funding mechanisms of their own. The Victorian model is similar to the Gonski committee's proposal but costs less. Even though the Prime Minister announced a gradual phase-in of funding increases to implement the Gonski reforms, it is hard to imagine why the states would change their fledgling systems and strain their own education budgets to accommodate the federal government. State governments are well aware of the tenuous relationship between spending and outcomes on education. They'll need a very good reason to commit substantial amounts of extra money.

The likelihood of some sort of federal funding reform, even if it is not the exact model envisaged by the Gonski committee, seems to change by the day. Recent reports that independent schools authorities are warming to the federal government's plans have significantly increased the odds of agreement from the whole non-government sector. The Council of Australian Governments meeting on April 19 will apparently decide the fate of the states. It is quite feasible, in theory, for some states and territories to buy in and others not. This might indeed be the better course of action - watch how it works in a couple of jurisdictions before every school in the country gets on board.

Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.