Why I don't give a Gonski for more school spending

DO I give a Gonski? I'm not sure. What does giving a Gonski mean?

If it means increasing real per-student spending on schools without any evidence that such spending leads to better student performance, I definitely don't.

If it means experimenting with different approaches to achieving better student performance, such as improving teacher quality, giving schools greater autonomy and using technology innovatively, then I definitely do give a Gonski.

If it means rationalising the means by which funds are distributed to non-government schools and eliminating the grandfathering in the system, then I definitely do give a Gonski.

There has been a massive real increase in both federal and state government spending on school students over a long period of time, starting in the early 1960s. In the 2000s alone, real per-student recurrent spending on schools rose by nearly 50 per cent.

Australia has not been alone in increasing spending on education. As Ben Jensen of the Grattan Institute notes, "many OECD countries have substantially increased education expenditure, often with disappointing results. Between 2000 and 2008, average expenditure per student rose by 34 per cent across the OECD. Large increases also occurred in Australia, yet student performance has fallen."

This lack of relationship between per-student spending and student performance is one of the core weaknesses of the Gonski report. The report advocates additional annual spending of $5 billion a year (on top of an estimated $6.5bn). But apart from the political need to ensure that no school is made worse off by the change to the funding formulas, the case is never made to justify such a massive increase.

Jensen's research comparing educational outcomes in Australia with recent improvements in neighbouring countries and regional cities is instructive.

Entitled Catching up: Learning from the best school systems in East Asia, the report notes the larger class sizes and lower per-student spending in South Korea, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore compared with Australia.

For example, South Korea spends 88 per cent of Australia's level of per-student spending on schools. And the average class size in Shanghai is 40 compared with 23 in Australia. (The average is 35 to 36 in the other three countries.) But the educational outcomes our neighbours are achieving are impressive. In Shanghai, for instance, the average mathematical achievement of 15-year-olds is two to three years ahead of 15-year-olds in Australia. Additionally, the rate of improvement in these countries has been spectacular.

Singapore's reading literacy, for instance, in 2001 was ranked 15th in the world. Today, it is fourth. For Hong Kong, the improvement is even more dramatic -- from 17th to second. Have these improvements to average outcomes come at the expense of the most disadvantaged students in these countries? To the contrary -- the gap between the high- and low-performing students is much narrower in these countries and cities than in Australia.

Clearly, Australia has a lot to learn from them. Notwithstanding the substantial rise in real expenditure on education, there was a significant decline in reading scores in Australia between 2000 and 2009. In combination with the convincing evidence based on meta-analysis that class size does not significantly influence student performance, there is actually a case for reducing real per-student spending on Australian schools or maintaining it at present levels by allowing class sizes to increase.

Another fundamental weakness of the Gonski report is its failure to take into account the central role that state governments play in relation to government schools.

Sure, there are banal statements in the report such as "the panel recognises the states and territories have constitutional responsibilities for the delivery and management of schooling. They require a strong degree of autonomy to meet the needs of their state or territory, school communities and student population."

But the qualification is added that "the panel also recognises that the outcomes of schooling are a national issue, influencing the economic and social wellbeing of Australia". This is complete drivel. The statement assumes state governments are not individually motivated to achieve the best results from their schools, including lifting the performance of disadvantaged students. In technical terms, there are no inter-jurisdictional spillovers to speak of that would justify the federal government becoming involved in school education, certainly not to the degree outlined in the Gonski report.

Moreover, the recommendations related to national formulas, a new national agency, pooling of funds between state and federal sources, are at odds with the states retaining their autonomy in relation to the management and running of schools.

And the recent suggestion from Julia Gillard that schools (there are 9500 of them) will need to submit plans to the federal government outlining their strategies to improve student performance -- can you just imagine how this is going to work? -- further bells the cat on this issue.

The final core weakness of Gonski is the failure to reach any satisfactory conclusion in relation to the distribution of government funds to non-government schools. To be sure, there are weaknesses in the SES (socio-economic status) formula, but it is the best we have.

However, the real problem with the system is the degree of grandfathering -- aptly named "funding maintained" -- in the arrangements, with the Catholic system being overcompensated relative to the SES of their students.

I also have a problem with government monies being directed to the Catholic education system rather than individual schools, as is the case with other non-government schools.

The solution to this conundrum is clear. Tell the Catholic schools and any other school on a funding-maintained arrangement that this system will not continue. Establish a transition path and move all schools to SES funding or some better variant over time. In this way, there will be greater transparency and fairness of non-government school funding.

So do I give a Gonski? Probably not because what I mean by giving a Gonski is not what others, particularly the Australian Education Union, mean by it.

My proposal: keep real funding where it is; leave the funding, management and running of government schools with state governments; and sort out the means of distributing government funds to non-government schools.

In the meantime, the states should avoid being wedged by the federal government. They have already lifted their funding efforts substantially; some have introduced measures to lift the quality of teaching and provide greater autonomy for schools.

They should not be asked to spend more given the lack of evidence to justify such action.