Chapter 2
THE EROSION OF GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT TO THE PROVISION OF FREE SECULAR
EDUCATION
[The] advent of self management ... has led to intense debate about
the relevance and significance of private and commercial funding of
government schools. It is my observation from close association with
many of these developments, that this debate has high-jacked the real
debate`the appropriate level of government funding and the disbursement
of this funding amongst different sectors and schools on a rational
educational basis'.' [1]
The issue that clearly emerged to lie at the heart of this inquiry is
the erosion of government commitment to the provision of free secular
education. It is noteworthy that although the terms of reference did not
refer to levels of government funding, nearly all submissions made specific
mention of the inadequacy of government funding for schools. In this respect,
the Committee's experience mirrored that of Howard and Coulter who noted
that over 50 per cent of the principals they surveyed made unsolicited
comment about the inadequacy of government funding for schools. [2]
The Committee was struck by the significant disparity between governments'
claims regarding their commitment to meet the resource needs of a standard
school education, and the views of parents, principals and teachers. Most
governments insisted that they allocated sufficient funds from the public
purse to provide for a basic school curriculumone which would meet the
requirements of the National Goals of Schooling.
[It] is the Government's position that ... [locally raised funding]
... is only necessary for the provision of services beyond a standard
education. Additional funding is not an essential element in the provision
of a standard level of education in NT schools. The government has always
provided adequate resources to schools for this purpose. [3]
Funds provided to schools by non-government sources are intended
to be additional to the base funding supplied to a school by the government
for its normal operational activities. These additional funds are used
to enhance the existing and basic curriculum of teaching/learning resources
available in those schools... [4]
Parents, principals and teachers from both government and non-government
sectors were vociferous in their rejection of such claims. Parents described
the growing acceptance of the reliance on private and commercial funding
for some of the essentials of schooling as an `invidious trend' leading
to the 'government abrogating its responsibility to fully fund a high
quality education for all children'. [5]
Principals impressed upon the Committee their view that `education in
government schools is not free' and `that government schools need funds
additional to those provided by government'. [6]
The message is clear that current levels of government funds are not sufficient
to meet what principals judge that their schools require.
Teachers urged the Committee to place the issue of the private and commercial
funding of government schools in its rightful context, that is `the cost
of public education and the responsibility of the government to fund it'.
[7] The Australian Parents Council, which
represents parents of children attending non-government schools, declared
that `neither the government nor the non-government schooling sector receives
adequate public funding'. [8]
The retreat of governments from their responsibilities to provide an
adequate school education is apparent in a number of ways. The evidence
indicates:
- an apparent decline in the level of government funding in recent years
- that privately raised funds are making an increased contribution to
the total expenditure on school education, a contribution that at the
local level of school operating costs is nothing less than crucial,
and
- that schools have come to rely on privately raised funds to provide
essentials, not just extras.
Cumulatively, the evidence before the Committee is compelling. The level
of government funding for schools is inadequate. An outline of the evidence
follows.
Evidence of a rEducation in governments' commitment to education
Figures provided in the Report of the National Commission of Audit
show a decline in the level of governments' spending on school education.
Expenditure by all levels of government on schools rose from 2.8 per cent
of GDP in 1972-73 to 3.6 per cent in 1983-84, but then declined
to 2.8 per cent of GDP in 1993-94.
During this time, the Commonwealth's share of government spending
on schools rose from 11 per cent in 1972-73 to 24 per cent
in 1983-84 and 30 per cent in 1993-94, while the state's share
declined from 89 per cent in 1972-73 to 76 per cent
in 1983-84 and 70 per cent in 1993-94. [9]
Latest available figures indicate that the expenditure on education as
a percentage of GDP has fallen again from 93-94 to 94-95, continuing a
pattern of steady relative decline during the 1990s.
A further worrying factor here is that the recurrent costs of schools
have been rising much faster than the general level of prices in the economy.
An examination of the schools cost index reveals increases in school costs
which are significantly higher than that represented by the standard indices
which are used to take account of general cost increases - such as the
gross non-farm product price deflator. Over this period, government funds
to schools were adjusted to reflect rises in the level of prices in the
economy generally. However, recurrent school costs appear to have increased
much faster than the prices within the general economy, with the result
that real school funding, deflated by the schools recurrent cost index,
actually showed a decline over the period in question. In short, any increase
in school funding levels by governments predicated upon general cost increases
in the economy generally will still be significantly short of what would
be sufficient to meet the actual increases in school recurrent
costs. It is a case, for government schools, of one step forward, two
steps back.
An examination of Commonwealth and State Recurrent Education Outlays
per student from 1988-1995 based on constant 1989-90 prices, and taking
into account the Schools Recurrent Cost Index, reveals a rEducation of
2.6% with an average annual rEducation of 0.4%.
Notwithstanding the above, some governments insist that they have increased
the level of funds flowing to schools.
South Australia has led the nation and continues to lead the nation
with respect to its cost investment per pupil, both primary and secondary,
and we are very proud of that fact. ..[There] has been some rEducation
in enrolment numbers in South Australian schools over the last decade
as a result of the lower birth rate and less migration... In the most
recent past the budget... did have a rEducation over a three-year period
of $40 million. ... Then there was a further $15 million rEducation,
which were offsets that referred to some rEducation at that time with
school service officers and other measures... But in December of last
year, the government increased my budget by $167 million each year...
The government has also approved an increase to my budget,this is outside
the normal budget process...,of $9.25 million, which is for special
needs students, students with special education, disabilities, significant
learning difficulties. [10]
It is extremely difficult to ascertain where the truth lies in matters
of State and Territory Government expenditure on services, especially
when the involvement of the Commonwealth is also taken into account. What
is most critical to a discussion of the level of government funding is
the argument that the level of funding has not kept up with the massive
increase in the costs of schooling resulting from developments in recent
years.
Governments have, on the one hand, abandoned the use of educational resource
standards as a means of determining funding for schools. On the other,
they have made no attempt to estimate the additional funds needed in order
to achieve the National Goals of Schooling, or the implementation of technology
or the demands of an expanding curriculum. It is therefore inevitable
that that a significant gap has developed between the level of funds schools
actually need and those they receive from governments.
Private and commercial funding as a proportion of the total expenditure
on school education
Figures provided by governments and academics indicate that the proportion
of total system expenditure on government schools that is represented
by privately raised funds is between approximately 57 per cent.
The Victorian Commission of Audit estimated that 6-7 per cent
of total revenue for all school education comes from locally raised
funds in Victorian government schools. This amounts to over $155 million
per annum, involving over 1,500 schools. [11]
The cash budgets managed by schools (from charges and grants) total
about 5-8 per cent of total costs each year. Of the disposable
cash budget, about 80 per cent is derived through various
school charges. These charges, together with the support grants from
government are the cash budgets with which schools purchase goods and
services. [12]
A study conducted by Dr Tony Townsend in Victoria, found that on average
4.75 per cent of the total school expenditure was raised
locally. [13] Given the consistency
of findings from various sources, the Committee accepts the figure 57 per cent
as a reasonable estimate of the proportion of total expenditure
on government schools derived from private sources.
Private and commercial funding as a proportion of local school operating
costs.
There is also considerable consistency between figures provided from
a range of sources relating to the proportion of individual school
operating costs represented by locally raised funds.
Howard and Coulter's study of fifty schools across Australia, found
that the combined locally-raised income constituted a significant proportion
of the total annual operating budget of schools (not including capital
and staff costs). Across the fifty schools, the average proportion was
27 per cent, with the proceeds `being overwhelmingly deployed
on `essentials' not `superfluities'being spread across physical infrastructure
and core curriculum activities'. [14]
Townsend's finding that '30.04 per cent of the operating budget
(non staff costs) were raised locally' verifies this figure. [15]
Figures referred to in the South Australian government's submission indicate
a slightly lower proportion.
The SAASSO survey of school councils on charges and other sources
of income indicated that over 20 per cent of metropolitan
primary and 7 per cent of country primary schools require
more than the proposed regulated materials and services charge, and
for metropolitan secondary schools the figure is 25 per cent
and for country secondary schools, 12 per cent. [16]
The Victorian Auditor-General's Report on Ministerial Portfolios,
May 1997, found that `locally raised funds generated a net
amount of $97 million in the 1996 school year (representing 16.9 per cent
of school operating revenue which does not include teacher salaries funding)'.
[17] However, a number of other submissions
suggest the proportion of school operating costs made up of privately
raised funds is considerably higher.
- Bellarine Secondary College Council estimates that `local funds comprise
33 per cent of the total funds available for curriculum resourcing
in the college' [18]
- The ACT Council of Parents and Citizens Associations `survey of ACT
government schools in 1995 found that general voluntary contributions
`comprise up to 40 per cent of the budgets of individual schools'
and that where `subject and material levies and fund raising by P&C
associations are included, the proportion of the operating budget contributed
by parents can rise to about 70 per cent' [19]
- The Australian Secondary Principals' Association (ASPA) estimate that
many `schools would now be relying on such funding for around 40 to
60 per cent of recurrent curriculum material expenditure'
[20]
- North Sydney Boys High School Council claims that 70 per cent
of disposable funds in the 1995 came from non-government sources. `In
almost every identifiable area the school expended more than the government
provided for the stated purpose'. [21]
Private and commercial fundingthe icing or the cake?
Nowhere is the evidence that the level of government funding is inadequate
to meet the real costs of a basic education more conclusive than in an
examination of the uses made of locally raised funds in schools. Parents,
principals and teachers are strongly of the view that schools now rely
on locally raised funds to deliver the essentials of education, not the
extras. The evidence speaks for itself:
From Parents Associations and School Councils
What is clear is that they are not just being used for extras or
enhancement but are regarded by many schools as essential. Parents,
educators and the community in general have high expectations of schools
and the resources necessary to achieve a full range of educational experiences
for students. Some of these experiences may be viewed `extras' or `essentials'
depending on one's view of education. This organisation, however, does
not believe drama, dance, a second language or computer literacy are
`extras' in primary education. The costs involved are sometimes high
and are rarely included in a school's global budget allocation. This
means that some schools abandon these aspects of education, or parents
or sponsors fund them, and only communities which can afford to support
them financially undertake these programs and others like them. [22]
The level of government funding provided to Victorian government
schools is inadequate to provide the breadth and quality of programs
required by the state government and expected by the community. [23]
There is a strong feeling that the old promise of a `free secular
education' is fast disappearing. The fear is that while we jump in and
fund the purchase of computers etc out of this feeling of necessity,
governments have come to rely more and more on P&C `family' funding
of what we parents see are grass roots items that really should be provided
by government. [24]
Locally raised funds contribute approximately 15 to 20 per cent
of the schools budget. It is important to note that much of this funding
is directed to areas which many parents feel are the responsibility
of government. Areas like facilities and resources for key learning
areas, proper heating and or cooling equipment, library books, desks,
audio visual and computing systems etc. It was once the case that fundraising
provided `the icing on the cake'. Now it must contribute to `making
the cake' as governments fail to provide adequate amounts of `ingredients'.
[25]
It should be noted that an increasing amount of this [voluntary]
contribution is going towards the provision of basic needs rather than
the enhancement of experiences. [26]
Our school could not operate effectively without these locally
raised funds. [27]
The level of funding provided by parents/students indicates that
education is not free, delivery of the curriculum relies on the contributions
by parents/students. The level of these contributions determines a schools
ability to provide resources to all students. [28]
It is probably fair to say that without recourse to these extra
funds (i.e parent levies, fundraising etc) the curriculum offered would
become greatly impoverished. Government funds never cover the extras,
not even completing major works such as roofing on the decking of the
new classrooms. [29]
From School Principals
While recent statistics are not available, it can be said that
the majority of private and commercial funds raised by NSW government
primary schools would be expended to support the six key learning areas.
Primary schools' opportunities to acquire appropriate and sufficient
curriculum support materials would be greatly reduced without this source
of funding. [30]
The funds raised by the schools from the other sources are essential
to attempt to provide a level of resourcing that is needed for excellence
in learning. The withdrawal of the ability to provide these extra resources
would be to condemn our government secondary students to a level of
mediocrity of resourcing that would be unacceptable to our parent groups.
[31]
From Teachers
Since the early 1980s the purposes for which government schools
raised money has widened to include items that were once the clear responsibility
of the state.
These include:
- Provision of tuition in the subject area of Languages other
than English (LOTE) one of the eight key learning areas which form
the basic curriculum framework for Australian schools
- Additional teaching and non-teaching staff
- Classrooms and other buildings for student use
- Airconditioning of schools
- Reticulation of school groundsnow considered vital due to the
rEducation in ground staff
- Paper.
...The Union views with concern the fact that school fundraising
is now essential to the provision of satisfactory public education.
Schools are increasingly obliged to raise funds for basic educational
provision, once the complete responsibility of government. [32]
[Parent] contributions ... have become a major component of the
school's operating budget, with schools dependent on money raised at
the school level to pay basic operating costs and purchase essential
equipment and resources.
In South Australia, as elsewhere, parents are charged fees which
are used for basic class room materials and equipment, learning programs,
resource centres, sports equipment, computers, library usage, facilities
maintenance as well as building levies and specific subject levies in
secondary schools. [33]
The South Australian Institute of Teachers (SAIT) asserts that:
- without private funds, there would be minimal curriculum and
teaching resources available in schools
- the level and adequacy of curriculum and teaching resources
in schools is directly related to the capacity of schools/parents
to raise such funds
- in effect there has been a direct transfer of the cost of the
curriculum and teaching resources from the government to schools/parents.
[34]
In addition to the evidence received by parents, teachers and principals,
the Committee also notes one of the key findings of the Victorian Auditor-General's
Report on Ministerial Portfolios which found that given `the level
of school revenues derived from local communities, (a net amount of $97
million in the 1996 school year) it is evident that schools are, to some
extent, reliant on this form of funding to supplement government funding
for the provision of educational services'. [35]
In the light of this body of evidence, claims by various governments
that government funds provide adequately for the delivery of a basic education
appear very lame.
Given the consistency of the view that government funding is inadequate,
the Committee noted with interest the comments from the Australian Secondary
Principals Association `that it is completely unrealistic to expect governments
to come up with the level of funding which would be required to provide
every item seen as desirableor even to replace funds not received [through
parent contributions] as a result of further negative publicity'. [36]
The latter part of this comment provides some explanation for the reluctance
of many principals to publicise the voluntary nature of school contributions
and fees. Such publicity frequently results in a marked rEducation in their
payment. To some extent schools rely on the sense of compulsion and the
ambiguities that surround the payment of voluntary contributions to secure
parents' compliance with schools' requests. This issue will be discussed
in detail in the next chapter.
The Committee is mindful of the complexities of the situation. In many
ways principals are caught between a rock and a hard place. The responsibility
of running schools on a day to day basis rests squarely on their shoulders,
and their wish to maximise the resources available to them is entirely
understandable. Increased competition from private schools and from other
public schools can translate easily into shifts in a school's population
with subsequent falls in funding. This sets up a cycle of decline. It
is natural that principals should seek to preserve the flexibility that
devolution of authority has offered them, particularly in terms of procuring
the funds needed by their schools.
While the Committee assures principals that it understands their concerns
and in no way seeks to remove the capacity of schools to build productive
relationships with parents and businesses, it is firmly of the view that
the these relationships should not be predicated on the need to raise
funds to meet the core costs of education.
It is inevitable that the burgeoning demands on schools in recent decades
have increased the real costs of education. The manifest failure by governments
to fund these increases, and their efforts to pass on the responsibility
for meeting the shortfall in funding to parents and schools under the
guise of strengthening parent/school partnerships, devolving authority
to schools, encouraging competition and increasing choice, fundamentally
threaten the principle of free secular education that has traditionally
characterised public education in Australia.
We seem not to have learned from the lessons of history. In 1984 the
Commonwealth Schools Commission was asked to provide advice on `the determination
of adequate general resource standards in government schools and the appropriate
contributions of Commonwealth and State Governments towards their attainment'.
Its findings and predictions bear an uncanny resemblance to the situation
described to the Committee in this inquiry:
The services many communities now expect from government schools
are not being met by present levels of public funding. This has created
a growing reliance on financial contributions from parents and situations
where students are unable to take part in the full range of educational
activities offered because their families cannot pay particular fees,
levies and charges. This situation, if left unchecked, could undermine
both the institution of free public schooling and the progress towards
equal educational outcomes. [37]
The Schools Commission developed independently a set of resource standards
that represented its `judgement of educationally desirable recurrent resources'.
[38] In recognition of the necessity
for flexibility, the funding standard allowed for a range of resource
allocation configurations. The standard was to be considered in the context
of objectives determined in the Commission's report Commonwealth Standards
for Australian Schools, which included recognition that quality in
schooling requires an adequate resource base, an equitable means of allocation
and an efficient use of these resources. The report also acknowledged
that schools should be able to make some decisions about the use of resources
within an overall resource entitlement. [39]
The proposed resource standard had the potential to serve a number of
purposes.
First, it provides a standard against which the resource requirements
of schools can be measured. Second, it could provide a basis for the
development of specific funding policies and mechanisms: for example,
the contributions of funding partners could be linked in a systematic
way to a planned progression towards the standard over a period. Third,
the various elements of the proposed standard could be the basis of
negotiations between the Commonwealth and the States, and non-government
school authorities on resource improvements in particular areas. Finally,
they could be a basis for the development of appropriate accountability
procedures in the context of Commonwealth general recurrent programs
for schools; and they could also provide a means by which school communities
could access resource allocation decisions at all levels'. [40]
This so-called `community standard' was used as the basis for determining
Commonwealth general recurrent grants funding levels from 19851992. Since
1993, these recurrent grants have been determined on the basis of movements
in the average recurrent cost of government schools (ARCOS). [41]
The ARCOS simply averages, over the government school population, the
expenditure by government on salaries and general operating expenditure.
The ARCOS does not take into account funds raised privately by schools,
nor does it include expenditure from Commonwealth specific purpose payments.
On this basis, it clearly underestimates the real cost of educating a
student in a government school.
In the Committee's view, the major flaw of the ARCOS approach is that
it is not linked in any way to targets, outcomes or standards. It simply
represents a benchmark of expenditure based on historical circumstance.
This is entirely inappropriate on a number of grounds. It is inconsistent
with the thrust towards using an outcomes approach to inform funding decisions.
It also ignores significant growth in retention rates, dramatic changes
in curriculum, and major advances in technology, all of which impact profoundly
on the resource needs of schools.
The Committee considers that it is the responsibility of governments
to fund schools to a standard commensurate with the expectations of the
community and the demands of the expanding curriculum. Parents and schools
should be enabled to `devote their efforts to meeting the educational
needs of students rather than raising funds to cover costs which should
be met from the public purse'. [42]
Governments need to establish the real cost of schooling and fund schools
accordingly. In 1995 the Schools Council suggested that one means of addressing
`the issue of the declining resources base would be to establish a collaborative
Schools Funding Committee to devise one funding formula for the allocation
of Commonwealth and State resources to all Australian schools.
...[The] Committee ... established under an appropriate national body
... would be asked to determine overall resource levels, service standards,
allocative mechanisms, and the relative funding shares of the various
partners...' [43] The Senate Committee
endorses this proposal. It suggests that the education resource standards
be linked to the eight key learning areas identified in the national goals
of schooling. A basket of services approach for determining the level
of resources needed to achieve these goals would provide a basis for funding.
The Committee notes with interest the work done by the Victorian government's
education committee under Professor Brian Caldwell. Its June 1995 Interim
Report on The School Global Budget in Victoria was subtitled `Matching
resources to student learning needs'. The Committee understands that a
final report, which deals at length with the issue of how schools should
be resourced, has been with the Victorian Minister for Education for some
months. The Committee urges the Victorian Minister to publish the findings
of the latest Caldwell report.
In the Interim Report of June 1995, Caldwell provided a final
chapter dealing with `Transitional arrangements and further work' which
sought to lay the foundations for a comprehensive approach to establishing
a link between resources allocated to schools and the stages of learning.
This approach sought to address the question `What should be the stages
of learning that will form the basis for the allocation of resources in
core funding for schools?' [44] The
general thrust of the Caldwell proposals was to undertake consultation
with a view to the phased implementation of per capita and per school
funding levels based on the identification of three stages of schooling,
namely, years K4, years 58 and years 912. This exercise would also
involve the assembling of some sense of the costs associated with different
stages of schooling, which could then guide resource allocation.
The Senate Committee regards it as crucial that a sensible approach to
resource allocation in schools be developed. The establishment of the
eight key learning areas and the associated curriculum frameworks provides
a solid background against which to develop measures of the costs associated
with delivering that curriculum. Governments would then know what the
costs are of providing a school education sufficient to cover the eight
key learning areas and to meet the National Goals for Schooling. This
data could then be used to develop methods of allocating resources to
schools.
It is likely that the yet-to-be-released final report of the Caldwell
Committee could provide some valuable guidance on these matters. Given
the ongoing controversy about the involvement of the Commonwealth, State
and Territory Governments in the funding of schools, and about the policy
changes and levels of funding which the Commonwealth has introduced, it
is timely to pursue a thorough investigation of school resourcing mechanisms.
This requires a thorough examination of the actual costs of delivering
a standard curriculum in our schools.
The Committee RECOMMENDS that:
- governments fund public schools at a level sufficient
to deliver the appropriate standard of education within the Eight
Key Learning Areas, and commensurate with the National Goals of
Schooling;
- the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments jointly
establish a Schools Education Costs Committee to undertake consultation
and research with the aim of ascertaining the cost of delivering,
at the various stages of schooling and in each of the eight key
learning areas, an education which will meet the basic requirements
of those Key Learning Areas and the National Goals for Schools;
and
- on the basis of such data and information determine overall
resource levels, allocative mechanisms and the relative funding
shares of the various governments.
Recommendation 2
|
Footnotes
[1] Submission no 1, vol 1, p 3 (The Sheffield
School)
[2] Howard Michael and Coulter Jane. Scrounging
to Meet the Shortfall: Fees, fundraising and sponsorship in government
schools. Public Sector Research Centre and the AEU, Sydney, 1995,
p i
[3] Submission no 56, vol 4, p 153 (Northern
Territory Government)
[4] Submission no 53, vol 4, p 106 (Queensland
Government)
[5] Submission no 50, vol 4, p 93 (NSW Federation
of School Community Organisations Council (FOSCO))
[6] Submission no 51, vol 4, p 95 (NSW Primary
Principals' Association)
[7] Submission no 38, vol 3, p 6 (South Australian
Institute of Teachers (SAIT))
[8] Submission no 44, vol 3, p 124 (Australian
Parents' Council (APC))
[9] National Commission of Audit. Report
to the Commonwealth Government. June 1996, AGPS, Canberra
[10] Transcript of evidence, Adelaide,
31 January 1997, pp 546547 (Mr Ralph, South Australian Government)
[11] Submission no 39, vol 3, p 97 (Association
of Independent Schools of Victoria)
[12] Submission no 67, vol 5, p120 (South Australian
Government)
[13] Submission no 27, vol 2, p 5 (Dr Tony
Townsend)
[14] Submission no 38, vol 3, p 9 (SAIT)
[15] Submission no 27, vol 2, pp 5, 6, 7 (Dr
Townsend)
[16] Submission no 67, vol 5, p123 (South Australian
Government)
[17] Auditor-General of Victoria, Report
on Ministerial Portfolios May 1997, p 23
[18] Submission no 29, vol 2, p 41 (Bellarine
Secondary College Council)
[19] Submission no 48, vol 4, p 7 (ACT Council
of P&C Associations)
[20] Submission no 30, vol 2, p 52 (Australian
Secondary Principals' Association (ASPA))
[21] Submission no 52, vol 4, p 101 (North
Sydney Boys High School Council)
[22] Submission no 50, vol 4, pp 9293 (NSW
FOSCO Council)
[23] Submission no 28, vol 2, p 28 (VICCSO)
[24] Submission no 20, vol 1, p 144 (Samford
State School)
[25] Submission no 8, vol 1, p 65 (Elwood School
Council)
[26] Submission no 16, vol 1, p 129 (Scotts
Head Public School Community)
[27] Submission no 24, vol 1, p 192 (Camberwell
Primary School Council)
[28] Submission no 29, vol 2, p 43 (Bellarine
Secondary College Council)
[29] Submission No 55, vol 4, p 137 (Huonville
Primary School Parents & Friends)
[30] Submission no 51, vol 4, p 97 (NSW Primary
Principals' Association)
[31] Submission no 36, vol 2, p 158 (Queensland
Secondary Principals Association)
[32] Submission no 59, vol 5, pp 56 (State
School Teachers' Union of WA Inc)
[33] Submission no 38, vol 3, p 7 (SAIT)
[34] Submission no 38, vol 3, p 55 (SAIT)
[35] Auditor-General of Victoria, Report
on Ministerial Portfolios May 1997, p 19
[36] Submission no 30, vol 2, p 52 (ASPA)
[37] Commonwealth Schools Commission. Funding
Policies for Australian Schools, Canberra, 1984, p 19
[38] Commonwealth Schools Commission. Funding
Policies for Australian Schools, Canberra, 1984, p 5
[39] Commonwealth Schools Commission. Commonwealth
Standards for Australian Schools: recurrent resources goals, Canberra,
April 1984, pp 15
[40] Commonwealth Schools Commission. Funding
Policies for Australian Schools, Canberra, 1984, p 7
[41] Schools Council. Improving Commonwealth
funding arrangements for government primary schools: Discussion paper,
NBEET, December 1994, p 10
[42] Submission no 60, vol 5, p 8 (Ms Bullivant)
[43] Schools Council. Resources and Accountability:
Commonwealth funding scenarios for government primary schools 1996-2000,
NBEET, Canberra, 1995, p 10
[44] Caldwell, B, et al. The School Global
Budget in Victoria, Interim Report, June 1995, Victorian Directorate
of School Education, pp 4649