Chapter 1
Government Senators' Majority Report
Schools Assistance Bill 2008
1.1
On 15 October 2008 the Senate referred to this committee the provisions
of the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 and the Education Legislation Amendment
Bill 2008 for report by 27 November 2008.
Conduct of the inquiry and submissions
1.2
The committee advertised the inquiry on its website and in The
Australian on 22 October 2008, calling for submissions by 31 October 2008. The committee also directly contacted a number of relevant organisations
and individuals to notify them of the inquiry and to invite submissions and
appearances before the committee. Fifty submissions were received as listed in
Appendix 1. These appear on the committee's website.
1.3
A public hearing was held in Canberra on 19 November 2008. The witnesses are listed at Appendix 2.
Acknowledgement
1.4
The committee thanks all those who contributed to its inquiry by
preparing written submissions and giving evidence at the hearing.
Background
1.5
The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 (the bill) represents a change
in the way Commonwealth funding is delivered to schools. The bill follows on,
in part, the Schools Assistance (Learning Together– Achievement Through
Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 which provided funding for
both government and non-government schools for the period 2004–2008. This bill
covers funding arrangements for non-government schools only. Future
funding for government schools will be provided through the National Education
Agreement, which is currently being negotiated with the states and territories
through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The bill will align the non-government
school sector with the reporting requirements for government schools to be set
out in the National Education Agreement.[1]
1.6
The bill provides an estimated $28 billion of funding for non-government
schools for the period 2009–2012. It will apply transparency and accountability
requirements to the non-government sector that are the same as government
schools. This means, for the first time, the performance of non-government
schools will be scrutinised in the same manner as government schools, with both
sectors providing information on performance, finances and programs. The
introduction of these measures gives effect to the Government's election commitment
to improve transparency in all schools.[2]
1.7
The bill also provides funding for Indigenous students attending
non-government schools. Previously, this funding was appropriated under the Indigenous
Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. The Education Legislation
Amendment Bill 2008 will amend this Act for this purpose. The Education
Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is discussed in Chapter 2.
1.8
The bill represents the government's commitment to provide scrutiny of
Commonwealth funding for non-government schools for the next quadrennium. The
government has set the goal of making Australia 'one of the most highly
educated and skilled nations on earth'[3],
and of improving school standards. Part of this improvement is ensuring that all
schools are bound by the same reporting and transparency requirements. Another
key element is the proposed implementation of a national curriculum to make
educational standards consistent across the country. Ultimately, the government
is hoping this bill will reduce the gap in the perception of quality between
government and non-government schools and focus attention on the real needs of
schools, rather on divisive issues which have affected school policy in the
past. This was explained by the Hon. Julia Gillard MP in her speech to
Independent Schools Council of Australia Parliamentary Forum:
For too long the debate about schools was diverted into
unproductive avenues. Public schools were pitted against private, traditional
curriculum was pitted against new, and academic ends were pitted against
technical. That era is now over. The true target of our efforts must be
individual students no matter which type of school they attend. The
Commonwealth has embarked on a new direction.[4]
1.9
Submissions received by the committee supported the bill being passed
expeditiously to ensure funding for non-government schools is provided in time
for the new quadrennium, commencing early in 2009. However, this support was
conditional on certain issues being addressed, namely the implementation of a
national curriculum and the proposed transparency and reporting requirements
within the provisions of the bill. As was revealed at the public hearing,
however, representatives of non-government school organisations understood that
these concerns would be addressed in discussions with the government after the
bills were passed, and that they were in no position to influence the government's
immediate legislative intentions.
Provisions of the bill
1.10
The purpose of the bill is to provide funding to non-government schools
in a manner that ensures transparency and accountability of the sector is
consistent with public schools. As part of the government's commitment to
improving educational standards across the country, new reporting requirements
will be placed on the non-government school sector. For this to occur, the bill
introduces six performance and transparency requirements which are set out in
clauses 17 to 22. Subparagraph 19(2)(b)(ii) allows the Minister to report
publicly on non-government schools' performance and financial arrangements. Clause
22 provides for the compulsory implementation of a national curriculum as a
condition of funding.
1.11
Clause 24 provides that a funding agreement must require reports of
financial information to the Minister. Reports relating to the following are
required:
-
programs of financial assistance provided under this Act, so far as they
relate to the relevant authority;
-
the financial operations (including the financial viability and funding
sources) of:
-
in any case – the school or other body; and
-
in the case of an approved school system – the schools (including each
particular school) in the system.
1.12
The Government's commitment to retain the current system of general
recurrent funding for non-government schools is reflected in clauses 38 to 56
of the bill. Non-government schools will continue to be funded through the
Socioeconomic Status (SES) funding model introduced in 2001. This model allows
for the allocation of funding to be based on the socioeconomic profile of the
school community, whereby the higher a school's SES score the lower the per
student funding rate. Routine revision of SES scores will occur over the next
four years, but provisions of the bill ensure that no school will receive less
funding due to the re-assessment of its SES score.[5]
1.13
The bill allows for the funding of current targeted programs under
clauses 86 to 99. These programs include short term emergency assistance;
education in country areas; teaching English to new arrivals; and literacy, numeracy
and special learning needs.[6]
Issues
1.14
The committee notes a number of concerns with the bill raised in both
submissions and in evidence taken at the committee's public hearing. Although
the majority of submissions supported the passage of the bill, most were
apprehensive about a number of the provisions that were conditional to funding.
Implementation of a national
curriculum
1.15
In December 2007, all governments agreed through COAG to develop and
apply a national curriculum. Successive governments have been interested in
pursuing this goal, and renewed enthusiasm for the idea straddled the change of
government in November 2007. The national curriculum has bipartisan support. The
implementation of a national curriculum by 31 January 2012 as a condition of funding is provided for in Clause 22 of the bill. In developing a single
curriculum from kindergarten to Year 12, the government aims to create uniform
achievement standards and broadly common curriculum content across the entire school
sector.[7]
1.16
The committee notes concerns regarding the proposed national curriculum
in submissions made to the inquiry. The most prevalent concern expressed in
submissions is the perceived lack of flexibility in the delivery of learning. The
Australian Association of Christian Schools (AACS) argued that it is the very
nature of the non-government school curricula that sets it apart from public
schools:
There are numerous philosophical, theological and pragmatic
implications attached to curricula and AACS would be most concerned if anything
flowing from the National Curricula were to compromise its schools’ capacity to
maintain their distinctive approaches, content, interpretation and pedagogies.[8]
1.17
At the hearing it became apparent that some members of the AACS are
concerned lest they be barred under curriculum guidelines from teaching the
doctrine of 'creationism'. They took away with them the committee's view that
it was highly unlikely there would be any presumption of what should not be
taught. The Minister's assurances in this regard were made known at the hearing
by officers from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations.
1.18
Concerns were also raised about the future of alternative curricula
programs such as the International Baccalaureate in the proposed national
curriculum. The Independent Schools Council of Australia also argued the
importance of non-government schools retaining flexibility in their curriculum.
In their submission, the Council expresses concern over the future of these
alternative programs:
The capacity to delivery the curriculum according to a school's
philosophy and pedagogical approach is essential for the continued operation of
these schools. It is not clear that this will be possible under this
legislation.[9]
1.19
A number of submissions expressed hesitation over the acceptance of a
curriculum that is yet to be written, but the committee believes such concerns
are unfounded. The national curriculum proposes uniform standards for each of
the key learning areas– English, mathematics, the sciences and history. However,
outside these core requirements, there will be flexibility allowing schools to
implement curriculum content at school level. It is inconceivable that there
will be no provisions for discretion and choice in subject content. Rather than
restrict school curriculum, the government sees the proposed curriculum as
setting key educational standards for all schools, and addressing concerns that
have arisen in many quarters about standards and about pedagogy which is most
effective in raising standards, particularly in regard to literacy and numeracy.
1.20
In their submission, the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations argued that the introduction of a national curriculum will
ensure all students have access to the essentials of learning regardless of
school they attend.[10]
In response to claims of inflexibility, Minister Gillard explained:
The national curriculum will not be a straightjacket for
schools. It will provide for flexibility and scope to allow schools and
teachers to implement its content and achievement standards in appropriate ways
at the local and school level. It should not interfere with the ability if
independent schools to continue to offer local curriculum arrangements within
the requirements of the curriculum essentials of the national curriculum.[11]
1.21
The committee expects the government will take into consideration these
concerns over curriculum flexibility when finalising the implementation of the
national curriculum. Furthermore, the committee notes that representatives of
non-government schools will participate in curriculum writing and consultative
bodies established to advise on national curriculum matters.
Funding transparency and audit
reports
1.22
In bridging the gap between public and non-government schools, the
government has promised to apply the same financial transparency requirements
across the education sector. In doing so, the government hopes to gain a better
understanding of the financial requirements of schools, and the current state
of the education system. However, the issue of funding transparency of
non-government schools has proved to be contentious, with a large number of
submissions focussing on this issue.
1.23
Some submissions are opposed to Section 15(c) of the bill which allows
the Minister to refuse or delay payment to a non-government school if a
qualified audit is conducted. Concern with audit process derive from the
possibility that the audit may be qualified for reasons other than financial
viability, such as a difference in accounting standards as argued by the Association
of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia (AISV) in
evidence given to the committee.[12]
Likewise, in their submission The Geelong College argued:
A qualified audit opinion may be given in an annual audit of a
school where the auditor disagrees with the treatment or disclosure of
information in the financial statements...A qualified audit may therefore arise
from an issue completely removed from the school's ability to viably operate.
It may even arise for non-financial reasons.[13]
1.24
The committee believes that fears about qualified audit reports are
without foundation. As explained by the Minister, an auditor may express
concern regarding a school's finances or viability without qualifying their
opinion. This section of the bill is described as a 'probity provision' and
relates purely to the 'appropriate and proper use of government funds'.[14]
The committee is confident that the audit process will not be used in a way
which harms non-government schools which are in all respects compliant with the
law.
1.25
A number of submissions suggested that the more stringent financial
reporting requirements are unnecessary. They argue that non-government schools
are already subject to Commonwealth accountability mechanisms such as the
financial questionnaire. In their submission to the inquiry, the AISV also
questioned the need for government to obtain this information:
Investment in education by parents and the community from private
after-tax income is not a matter for government. Big brother supervision of parental
decision on investing personal resources in their children’s education is extreme
micromanagement. The requirements on schools to report to parents and disclose
their financial activities are more than sufficient for parents to determine
the value of schooling.[15]
1.26
Similarly, they felt that the current reporting requirements were
sufficient:
It is AHISA's view that current reporting arrangements for
independent schools' financial data more than adequately meet public
accountability and transparency requirements and AHISA recommends this be taken
into account in the framing of the regulations pertaining to the legislation.[16]
1.27
In evidence given to the committee during the public hearing, it was
claimed that publishing the source of funding of schools may discourage private
donations. The appropriateness of public reporting was also questioned on the
grounds that for some independent schools Commonwealth funding constituted only
a small proportion of income. The Association of Independent Schools of
Victoria (AISV) told the committee:
In a local community people will give to a
school, but they will not give to every school and they may well be concerned
that, if they provide money to one school and that is publicly disclosed, they
will then be under attack from other schools, including government schools. We
believe that will have a direct impact on people’s willingness to give in a
corporate sense. There are other more specific examples that others might want
to address.[17]
1.28
Furthermore, the AISV also voiced their concern regarding the possible
misuse of school financial data by the media. Dr Heather Schnagl, Vice–Chairman
of the organisation claimed:
We are concerned about the potential, in publishing all sources
of moneys, for it to be distorted in the public press. I can just see the
headlines on the front page of the media if they are published out there:
‘So-and-so school has this amount of money to spend on each individual
student.’[18]
1.29
Conversely, some submissions supported the stringent financial scrutiny of
non-government schools. In their submission, the New South Wales Teachers
Federation pointed to the transparency of the government school sector, and
argued that non-government schools need to become just as transparent:
The public education system is subject to the most intense
scrutiny, through reports to Parliament and other bodies, to parents and
through the media. In NSW they are obliged to report publicity on their
financial affairs. Public schools have found themselves in the position of
having their bank balances published in the tabloid press, the information
provided to them by official channels. No such scrutiny is applied to private
schools which act with the benefit of ‘commercial-in-confidence’ clauses. There
can only ever be a perception of any semblance of “fairness” in funding when
there is full knowledge of the circumstances of the private schools sector...[19]
1.30
The committee considers that the grounds for opposition to increased
financial transparency of non-government schools are insubstantial. Increased
transparency of the financial resources of non-government schools is essential
to gaining a better understanding of the current state of the country's
education system. The funding transparency provisions in the bill will allow
the government to target financial assistance effectively and will make
financial reporting requirements consistent across both government and
non-government schools. It will make possible more accurate indications of
cost-benefit trends. The fear that private donors will be discouraged out of
fear of identification is without grounds. DEEWR officials advised the
committee that:
It does identify it in an aggregated level [the sources of
income]. But in terms of what would be reported publicly, that is still to be
developed in consultation with the non-government sector and also through the
expert working group...But it is not the intention to go to that level of
disaggregation. Private donors would not be revealed in that sort of way. It
would be aggregated up.[20]
National Education Agreement and
performance reporting
1.31
In Federal Labor's Commitment to Lift School Standards, the
government made an election commitment to improve transparency in schools
through the introduction of national testing and public reporting on
performance of schools. This commitment has materialised as a central element
of the schools assistance bill. The National Education Agreement currently
being finalised through COAG provides for performance and accountability
requirements to be applied to government schools. The Schools Assistance Bill
aims to make requirements on non-government schools consistent with this
agreement. The National Education Agreement plays a central role in the government's
education reform agenda. Aligning requirements of non-government schools with
those of government schools will ensure consistency and transparency in
performance reporting across all schools.
1.32
A number of submissions made to the inquiry expressed apprehension at
the proposed publication of school performance reports. While recognising the
collection of this data may assist the government in targeting needs-based
funding, concern has arisen regarding the potential misuse of such data. In
their submission, the Australian Association of Christian Schools explained:
...we have significant concerns about the potential uses and
abuses of this data once it is in the public arena. Of particular concern are
the schools that are most exposed to social dysfunction and socio economic
disadvantage...AACS believes that this data, once collected, should be scaffolded
with carefully designed confidentiality protocols that protect schools from a
predatory media.[21]
1.33
Raising the issue of the possible misuses of school data, Hillcrest Christian
College asked:
Furthermore, how will this information be used? Too frequently
we see information gathered by the Government end up in the media only to be
distorted and misrepresented. How will the rights of our community be respected
and protected in such an information gathering exercise?[22]
1.34
There are fears that the release of such information will unfairly rank
non-government schools. The National Catholic Education Commission (NCEC) argues
in their submission that data collected may be used to 'denigrate certain
schools or teaching programs'.[23]
Moreover, such reporting requirements are expected by some to 'add to the
already significant regulatory burden'[24]
faced by schools.
1.35
In response to concerns raised over the publication of school
performance reports, the Minister rebutted claims that the release of such data
would create disadvantage amongst schools. Instead, she explained the use of
such reports would enable the government to allocate resources more fairly and
effectively and provide parents with more information about schooling options
for their children.[25]
Furthermore, the Minister explained that schools would be compared with other
like schools so as to avoid unfair comparisons.[26]
The Minister also responded to suggestions that simplistic league tables would
be created and stated:
I want to emphasize that these will not lead to the creation of
dumb league tables that tell us little but to smart reports that show us how
well each school is meeting agreed standards compared to schools with similar
enrolments and challenges.[27]
1.36
The committee recognises that performance reporting needs to be
consistent for all schools for the government to achieve its education improvement
goals. The committee has some regard for the arguments that 'league tables' can
give a misleading impression of overall school performance. They may inflate
the reputations of some schools and underrate the effectiveness of others. On
the other hand, the arguments of independent schools are inconsistent with the
otherwise competitive tendencies of schools in asserting their commitment to
excellence. Competition is one of the main rationales for the continuing
existence of independent schools and for the support they receive from the Commonwealth.
If parents send their children to independent schools in the expectations of
higher achievement than they would receive elsewhere, this should be tested. In
practice, published performance on school data is highly unlikely to result in
a rush of students from one school and into another on the basis of this
performance. Enrolment stability is unlikely to be effected by this measure.
The SES model
1.37
The government will continue the SES funding arrangements for
non-government schools under the provisions of the bill. Introduced in 2001,
the SES funding model links the residential addresses of students enrolled at
the school to Census data to produce a socioeconomic profile of the school
community and its ability to support the school. Under the SES model, funding
is allocated according to the socioeconomic status of the community the school
is located in. Schools which draw students from largely high SES areas receive
lower levels of funding than schools which draw from areas of average or low SES.
[28]
SES scores will be reviewed over the next four years.
1.38
The use of the SES funding model, as well as the transparency and
reporting requirements outlined in the provisions of the bill, has generated concern
regarding its use in the future. The additional reporting requirements placed
on schools are seen by some as signalling the abolition of the SES model. Ms Joy
Shepherd, Principal of St Hilda's Anglican School in Perth explained:
I think the additional reporting requirements for programs and
financial operations suggest there's a move away from the commitment to the
current SES as a basis of grants for non-government schools.[29]
1.39
The belief that the new reporting requirements may undermine the continued
use of the SES model was evident in a number of submissions. Geelong College
questioned the introduction of these new requirements, fearing they could form
an alternative funding system which would replace the SES model of funding.[30]
The College showed support for the SES funding arrangements in their
submission:
The Geelong college has in the past stated its strong support
for the SES model of funding...the SES model eliminated many inequities and went
further towards producing a 'level playing field' than its predecessor...[31]
1.40
Christian Schools Australia argue the benefits of the SES model, citing
its transparency and independence from both schools and government as key
reasons for their support.[32]
The NCEC argued the use of the SES methodology 'has provided a degree of
funding stability for Catholic schools'.[33]
1.41
The Lutheran Education Australia submission acknowledged there are
issues that need to be addressed with respect to the SES model. However, they
are 'confident that the announced funding review for 2010 will allow these
issues to be identified and addressed'.[34]
1.42
The Australian Education Union has consistently opposed the SES model,
which it sees as a device of funding for resource rich schools at the expense
of those less endowed. Mr Angelo Gavrielatos, President of the Australian
Education Union told the committee:
In approaching this inquiry, we want to again restate what is in
our submission—namely, our critique of the architecture of the funding
arrangements which regrettably the Rudd government has embraced in their
entirety and put forward again for another four years. It is regrettable
because the architecture of the funding system is flawed and known to be
flawed, and it is not only our own critique that shows that.[35]
1.43
The committee notes that research conducted by the Department has
indicated problems with this model, and that it will be further evaluated
during the forthcoming quadrennium. In response to opposition of the model, the
government has maintained that it will review the SES funding program over the
next four years.
Abolition of establishment grants
1.44
Introduced in 2001, establishment grants were introduced to assist newly
commencing independent schools. The grants were implemented to allow these new
schools to be competitive with existing schools, particularly newly established
Catholic systemic schools. At the time, Catholic schools were funded outside
the SES model without regard to the socioeconomic status of their school
community. As Catholic systemic schools became fully integrated into the SES
system of funding and therefore have had their funding determined on the same
basis as new independent schools, the government decided establishment grant
assistance is no longer needed.[36]
1.45
The committee notes that while the establishment grants are welcome, new
schools are not totally dependent on this assistance. Representing the
Independent Schools Council of Australia, Mr Bill Daniels told the committee:
From an ISCA perspective, we do not consider that to be a major
issue. It was certainly a useful contribution for new schools that were being
established to help them get over the hurdles of the first couple of years, the
additional start-up costs of the school...It was certainly a valuable
contribution, but I do not think it will prevent the opening of schools that
are determined to open.[37]
1.46
Similarly, Mrs Therese Temby of the NCEC informed the committee at the
public hearing:
...most schools when they open have very few enrolments so in fact
the establishment grant, because it was per capita based, was quite small. So,
therefore, I do not believe it will be a disincentive to the establishment of
new Catholic schools.[38]
1.47
The committee believes that the abolition of the establishment grants
will not pose a hurdle to the formation of new non-government schools.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page