Coalition Senators' Report
The necessity to have the Schools Assistance Bill 2008
and the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 passed before the
Parliament rises in December limits the opportunity to examine these important
policy developments in the time available. It is of limited comfort to
Coalition senators that the committee may be able to monitor this legislation
in operation over the next two years.
During this inquiry
non-government schools' representatives expressed concern that government funding
for the 2009 school year is being linked to the passage of these bills, with
the detail of many of the policies they will usher in unexplained to the sector
at this stage. The Chief Executive of the Association of Independent Schools
of Victoria made this analogy:
I had a principal from a school phone me the other day and say,
‘We tell our students not to sign up to mobile phone plans unless they
absolutely know what they are signing up to, and here we are with something
that is far more important to us and we’re expected just to sign without
knowing.’ I think that people are extremely concerned about signing to deliver
something when they do not know what it is.[1]
Schools Assistance Bill 2008
Coalition senators have a number of concerns about issues foreshadowed
in the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 (the bill).
There are four main areas of concern which interested
parties to the legislation raised with the committee, and which are referred to
in report. They are:
- Changes to the grounds upon which the Minister can elect
to refuse or delay payment, which makes it easier for the Minister to do
so (section 15);
- The new requirement in school funding agreements to comply
with the National Curriculum by 2012, as specified in regulations (section
22);
- Alterations to the reporting requirements for schools,
particularly new requirements relating to information about financial viability
and funding sources (section 24); and
- Removal of the previous Government’s new non-government
schools establishment grants (section 100).
Ministerial discretion with regard to payments
Coalition senators have concerns with section 15 of the Bill.
Section 15 specifies grounds upon which the Minister may
refuse to authorise or delay a payment to a non-government school. These
grounds include if the school is being wound up (s15(a)) or is unable to pay
its debts (s15(b)).
Section15(c) of the Bill provides for new reasons for such
refusal or delay in the case that:
c) if a law of the Commonwealth or a State requires the
body or authority to be audited – the relevant audit:
(i) is expressed to be qualified; or
(ii) expresses concern about the financial viability
of the body or authority.
Coalition senators are concerned that this clause goes
beyond ensuring payments are made only to financially-viable schools.
The clause refers to situations where the relevant audit
"is expressed to be qualified". The inquiry heard that there may be circumstances,
other than those which go to the financial viability of a school, which lead to
an audit being qualified. One example is a hesitation about a school model,
whether a financial hesitation or otherwise.
A qualified audit does not necessarily signal that a
school’s financial situation is precarious enough to warrant the Minister
refusing or delaying payment.
Geelong College was concerned at the broad power conferred
on the minister by this section:
While section 15 of the Bill directly refers to
financial viability, part (i) is wide enough to allow the Minister to interfere
with payments to a school for any issue giving rise to audit
qualification.
The
Geelong College believes that to thus empower a Minister when an
audit qualification arises from non-viability factors is unreasonable and
inappropriate.[2]
Coalition senators believe that a "qualified audit
report" covers too broad a range of circumstances to be a useful criterion
for refusing to make payments to a school. The proposed clause would allow the
Minister to delay or refuse funding even though a school is in fact financially
viable.
The Association of Independent Schools (Victoria) gave
convincing testimony at the public hearings illustrating how schools might be
inappropriately captured by this clause.
Recommendation 1
Recommend that paragraph 15(c)(i) be removed from the bill.
Compliance with the National Curriculum
Coalition senators have concerns with section 22 of the Bill.
Section 22 sets out the new requirement in school funding
agreements to require the relevant authority for the school or system to ensure
that the school, or each school in the system, implement the National
Curriculum by 2012, as specified in regulations.
Section 22 reads as follows:
S.22 – Funding agreements – national curriculum
(1)
A funding agreement for a non-systemic school, or an approved
school system, must require the relevant authority for the school or system to
ensure that the school, or each school in the system, implements the national
curriculum prescribed by the regulations for primary education or secondary
education (or both, as applicable).
(2)
The requirement mentioned in subsection (1) must be satisfied on
or before 31 January 2012.
Testimony was received by the Committee both in writing and
at the public hearing regarding concerns by schools with this section, concerns
exacerbated in particular by the lack of guidance to date (so far, only the
framing documents in each subject area have been released for consultation) as
to what the National Curriculum will look like.
This leaves a major conceptual gap
in this legislation. Coalition senators are concerned that the Bill seeks to tie school
funding to acceptance of a National Curriculum that is not yet drafted. Even if
there were no controversy about the apparent ideological bias of some of the
framers of the National Curriculum, this clause would still elicit concern.
Section 31 of the previous
legislation required schools to commit to curriculum-related activities, such
as Statements of Learning in five areas (English, mathematics, science, civics
and citizenship education, and information and communications technology), but
not to specific curriculum.
Initially, the National Curriculum
will cover only four discipline areas being those of Maths, Science, History
and English. One of the issues that arise is how prescriptive the curriculum
content in these discipline areas will be. Will it be prescriptive in terms of
content and materials, or alternatively, will it be a framework within which
schools can determine content? This question is yet to be answered.
This raises obvious issues for schools
offering alternative curricula such as the International Baccalaureate or the University of Cambridge International Examinations. These schools will have to comply with the national
curriculum in the four stated subject areas whilst teaching their own
curriculum in other subject areas. Students cannot however qualify for an International
Baccalaureate Diploma, for example, without completing all components of the
Diploma including International Baccalaureate specified curriculum in the 4
disciplines covered by the National Curriculum.
Schools offering alternative
educational philosophies, such as Steiner or Montessori schools, will similarly face difficulties in meeting the
requirements of this section.
Coalition senators believe that
diversity in curriculum, teaching philosophies and course offerings is a
profound strength of the Australian education system. These reforms seem to
depart from that rich historical development. As John Marsden, the principal
of Candlebark
School in Victoria, put it:
As an author who - and I'm afraid this is going to sound pompous
- has always promoted the interests of young people, and more importantly, as a
teacher and school principal, I'm a bit stunned to think that the federal
parliament might contemplate passing a Bill which could deprive schools of the
right to develop their own curricula, and to innovate and develop special,
school specific learning programs. Good grief! Schools should be massively
encouraged in the development of new curricula and innovative programs.
Anything else will lead to a moribund system, and will threaten progress in
this most important area of our society.
The dead hand of bureaucracy already rests heavily upon
Australian schools. The Parliament should be working to lift it, not to add to
its weight.[3]
Deputy Prime Minister Gillard
has refused either in Parliament or in the public arena to confirm that
alternative educational philosophies and approaches will continue to be
acceptable under the new arrangements, despite many opportunities to do so.
When given the opportunity to clarify this matter, she has repeatedly
sidestepped the question, instead asserting that application of the curriculum
would be mandatory and advising that she would seek the advice of the new
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) – a body yet to be formally established and
whose membership will be overwhelmingly appointed by state and territory Labor ministers.
In the same speech in which Minister Gillard said that she
would seek ACARA’s advice, she went on to say: 'What is not open for
negotiation is the idea that a world-class curriculum will be an optional extra
for schools that are receiving significant public funds.'
The ambiguity in the Government's position presents a major
threat to certainty and autonomy in the non-government school sector.
Again, the urgency of this change has not been explained. There
is no reason that legislation dealing with a National Curriculum couldn’t be
separated from this Bill, and introduced in its own bill next year, allowing
for appropriate debate to take place once we see the shape of the new
curriculum. To pass this section intact now gives a blank cheque to the
framers of the curriculum.
Recommendation 2
That section 22 be removed from the Bill. Alternatively
section 22 be amended to allow for approved alternative curricula to be offered
in schools, such as the IB, University of Cambridge International Examinations,
Steiner and Montessori programs.
Reporting of funding sources
Section 24 (1) of the bill reads
as follows:
S.24 – Funding agreements –
reports on programs and financial operations
(1)
A funding agreement must require
the relevant authority for the non-government school, or other non-government
body, to ensure that a report (or reports), of a kind (or kinds) required by
the Minister, is given to the Minister in relation to each of the following:
(a)
Programs of financial
assistance provided under this Act, so far as they relate to the relevant
authority;
(b)
The financial operations (including
the financial viability and funding sources) of:
(i)
in any case – the school or
other body; and
(ii)
in the case of an approved
school system – the schools (including each particular school) in the system.
What is meant by "funding sources" is unclear on
the face of the legislation. The Independent Schools Council was unable to say
what this entailed:
What is meant by funding sources is unclear to us. The
discussions that we have been involved in with governments to date have a long
way to go in terms of what is the bottom line and what is the level of
disaggregation. We simply cannot know. [4]
The Government however has stated that it intends to ensure
that all schools, public and non-government, face identical requirements to
make known the full financial details of their operations, including all
sources of income and expenditure. Such information
might specifically include details of scholarship funds, bequests and other sources
of funding such as profit-generating activities, or community fundraising
undertaken by Parents’ and Friends’ Associations.
Non-government schools have stated that they consider this
demand to be unfair. It goes much further than simply requiring the acquittal
of Commonwealth funds, and has the potential to discourage the private
donations of endowments and other gifts, especially when these are provided in
kind, by way of services.
There was strong testimony
delivered to the public hearings of the inquiry, and in written submissions, as
to how the publication of this information is superfluous and potentially divisive.
Coalition senators are suspicious of the Government's
motives in making this provision in the bill. The Minister has explained, in
very vague terms, that this information is necessary for the purposes of
overall planning. The Government says that it needs to know the total amount of
funds at a school's disposal so as 'to understand the relationship between
resourcing and educational outcomes'.[5]
This explains very little.
Coalition senators fear that the Government seeks information
about the resourcing of individual schools for the purposes of returning to a
funding model which would provide much reduced funding to schools deemed to be
asset rich as a result of strong community and family support over many years.
Nor would this policy affect only long-established schools.
The committee received a submission from Fitzroy Community School
in Melbourne which sums up the attitude of many non-government schools:
The school funding bill has a new clause that all schools
(except state-run schools) shall have to reveal to the government whatever
funds they may receive by way of donations or fundraising, and that these
figures may be published. It is hard to see what this information could be used
for, except to reduce funding to such schools.
This would have bad effects on society. The community would be
less willing to support their schools. This would increase the burden on the
taxpayer. And it would suppress the natural inclination of families to be
involved with their children’s needs.[6]
It is clear to Coalition senators that this concern is linked
to the threat to the SES model of funding. A number of witnesses appearing
before the committee indicated their apprehension about the possibility that the
SES model would cease.
While Coalition senators obviously welcome the retention of
the SES funding model in the short term, at least, they are concerned about the
longer term policy of the Government. We believe there is a strong chance that
the views that Minister Gillard and other members of the Government held when
in Opposition will eventually prevail, as traditional Labor interests hostile
to non-government education win back policy-making influence.
Recommendation 3
That Section 24(1) (b) of the Bill be amended to
exclude a requirement for schools to disclose their sources of funding, other
than funding from government instrumentalities.
Removal of the New Non-Government Schools Establishment Grants
Testimony given at the public
hearing showed that these grants were very helpful to new schools becoming
successful.
The previous Government encouraged
the viability of the non-government sector and encouraged new schools where a
community demand and private sector interest supported such facilities. This encouragement
was provided through the New Non-Government Schools Establishment Grants.
The Australian Association
of Christian Schools expressed these concerns:
The unexpected removal of this funding provision from the Act
is, to say the least, a disappointment and, in the opinion of AACS, a serious
backwards step.
Already, Non Government schools must carry a much greater burden
than Government schools in the establishment of a new facility. Legal,
structural, capital and marketing costs are at their peak at such a time and
enrolments are often at an awkward stage, thereby creating temporary financial
pressures.
The Minister has indicated a strong commitment to “schooling” as
an expression of her desire to see the funding of Government and Non Government
schools on a more even footing. It is difficult to see how the removal of the
Establishment Grant contributes to a more even playing field.
AACS would propose that the Government revisit the removal of
this Grant and ensure that Non Government schools, who must carry the lion’s
share of the start-up capital for a new school, are not further disadvantaged
in comparison to the establishment of new Government schools.[7]
The legislation allowing for the
Minister to make these grants was contained in Section 102 of the Schools
Assistance (Learning Together – Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act
2004. The comparable section (Section
100) in the bill only makes provision for those schools approved in 2008 to
receive grants in 2009.
In phasing out these grants
(immediately) the Government is making it increasingly difficult to set up new
non-government schools. It is hard to understand why newly developing communities
and suburbs should not have the same access to government support in
establishing new schools that schools in older areas have already enjoyed.
Recommendation 4
That the Government restore grants programmes for new non-government
schools of the kind provided for in Section 102 of the Schools Assistance
(Learning Together – Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004.
Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008
Coalition senators have no comment
to make in relation to this bill, which they note brings much-needed
simplification of funding arrangements for Indigenous education. Coalition
members of this committee have been active in encouraging this trend during
previous inquiries.
Senator Gary
Humphries
Deputy
Chair
Senator Michaelia
Cash
Senator Mary
Jo Fisher
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page