CHAPTER 3
Equity considerations
Much of the evidence heard by the Committee in the course of this inquiry
related to the issue of equity. Many witnesses perceived developments
in the private and commercial funding of government schools as a serious
threat to the achievement of equity between schools and as having serious
implications for low income families. Others were adamant that the issue
of equity should be left out of the debate on the grounds that most governments
factored in the differing needs of schools in their allocation of funds
to those schools. In addition, a number of States provide some form of
financial assistance for families on low incomes. In assessing these claims
the Committee looked ,firstly, at the impact of the private fund raising
on families and, secondly, on schools.
Impact on families
Families have always contributed to schools in a variety of ways. The
Committee acknowledges that considerable benefits flow to schools from
the participation of parents in fund raising activities and the donation
of parents' time, skills and efforts to different aspects of school life.
The Committee heard, however, that for many parents, the pressure to contribute
financially to schools exacerbates difficulties they already face in meeting
the growing costs of schooling. According to agencies involved in working
with low income families, the number of families for whom this is the
case is growing.
[The Emergency Relief Agencies Forum (ER Forum)] have reported
assistance with school costs as a major issue facing people in low incomes
in the January/February period, with the level of contributions expected
of parents appearing to increase each year. In 1996 many agencies reported
a significant increase in people on low incomes accessing emergency
relief to cover these costs. [1]
Recent studies conducted by other agencies shed some light on the impact
the increasing cost of schooling has on low income families. In 1996 the
Smith Family conducted a study of 640 families across Australia involved
in its EDU-CATE program. Many families reported being forced to compromise
on their children's education:
- 20 per cent could not afford text books
- 50 per cent could not afford to participate in school camps
- 15 per cent could not participate in school excursion
- 24 per cent had difficulties in paying general fees/levies
- 62 per cent of those asked to purchase computer discs for
a course their child was taking could not afford it. [2]
A survey of users of the Brotherhood of St Laurence's Material Aid Service
in Frankston during December 1996January 1997 had similar findings. The
study concluded that the `costs associated with sending children to state
schools did have an effect upon their education, even though parents actively
sought to minimise these effects by making pragmatic choices about which
items were essential for their child's education'. [3]
Clearly choices are being made between purchasing uniforms, books, paying
for excursions or making voluntary contributions. Alarmingly, 38 per cent
of the respondents in the Brotherhood of St Laurence survey reported that
they missed meals in order to pay school costs. [4]
Witnesses who claimed that equity considerations are irrelevant to the
debate argued that most States/Territories had specific school assistance
schemes for families in hardship. Examples offered included the Education
Maintenance Allowance in Victoria (EMA), the School Card in South Australia,
the Secondary Assistance Scheme in Western Australia and the Student Assistance
Scheme (STAS) in Tasmania. Such measures have obvious value in alleviating
some of the difficulties families face in meeting the costs of schooling.
Before discussing the different schemes in some detail, it should be
noted that in the Committee's view, the amount assessed by Governments
to assist parents who are unable to pay subject levies or other charges
or to make voluntary contributions is one measure of what Governments
judge a school needs to provide the education for that child. The Committee
is concerned that in many cases this assessed amount falls short of what
the school actually levies. Either schools are overcharging or the Governments,
by their own measures, are underfunding those students. Further, the recognition
of Governments of the need for this assistance for those who cannot pay
is a clear admission that schools are underfunded in each place by at
least this amount.
Eligible recipients of STAS in Tasmania receive $41 for kindergarten,
$52 for primary, $112.50 in secondary school and $181.00 in senior secondary
school. The payments are intended to cover the full cost of school books,
materials and compulsory school fees and are paid directly to the school
on behalf of the student. [5]
Recipients of the School Card in South Australia receive $103 at primary
level and $160 at secondary level. [6]
The payment is made directly to the school which is able to `automatically
deduct the amount of the school fee up to the total of the School Card
grant. Parents may then be asked by the school to contribute the difference
between the grant and the total fee and can negotiate with the school
on how, and how much, to pay'. [7] According
to the government, the School Card is `to be used for items to further
the student's education. This includes materials or services covered by
the school fee, excursions, camps, art, music charges, school clothing
or other learning equipment'. [8] The
level of the School Card payment, however, is not always sufficient to
cover the amount of the school charges let alone any additional expenses
such as the costs of excursions, camps etc. As figures provided by the
South Australian government show, if the average level of charge at primary
school level is $107 per annum [9]
and the School Card payment is $103, there is a shortfall of $4 left to
go towards the items mentioned above. The difference between the School
Card payment at secondary level and the average secondary school charge
of $158 [10] is $2.00.
The Committee notes that there is considerable variation in the level
of charges between schools. Figures provided by the government show that
the range of fees at primary level is between $35 and $200. At secondary
level, it is between $95 and $315. [11]
Clearly, the school card offers valuable assistance to families with students
who attend schools with charges set well below average. Families with
children at school with higher charges, however, not only have nothing
left from the school card payment to put towards other school expenses
but may still also face considerable pressure to pay the gap between the
school card and the set charges.
In evidence before the Committee the South Australian government advised
the Committee that a draft regulation setting charges up to a maximum
of $150 for primary schools and $200 for secondary schools was being prepared.
In addition to the proposed maximum set charge, School Councils would
be able to levy an additional charge. They would not, however, be able
to enforce the collection of the voluntary component through legal proceedings.
As discussed later in the chapter the Committee is entirely opposed to
the imposition of any compulsory charges in schools. While compulsory
charges remain, it is imperative that there is no gap between the level
of those charges and the value of the School Card. [12]
Essentially, in States and Territories where charges or levies have become
compulsory, the assistance available merely enable parents to meet or
nearly meet those charges/levies. The Committee questions whether such
schemes are an adequate response to the difficulties faced by low income
families. A critical issue in this discussion must be the existence of
compulsory charges within a free public education system. The relationship
between compulsory charges and equity is discussed in the next section.
In contrast to South Australia's School Card and Tasmania's Student Assistance
Scheme, the Education Maintenance Allowance in Victoria cannot be used
to offset voluntary contributions. Since the start of 1997, the payment
has been split 5050 between parents and the school. Recipients receive
$127 per annum per child in primary school and $254 per child in secondary
school. Although of some assistance, the EMA is insufficient to defray
all the costs associated with schooling as shown by figures provided by
the Brotherhood of St Laurence on the costs associated with schooling.
According to the Brotherhood of St Laurence study, the average cost
of schooling per primary child is $460 and the average cost per secondary
child is $866. [13] The costs are broken
down into the following categories.
(a) Primary school
(i) uniformsmedian cost $127
(ii) booksmedian cost $100
(iii) fees/levymedian cost $100
(iv) excursions/tripsmedian cost $80
(b) Secondary School
(i) booksmedian cost $250
(ii) uniformsmedian cost $240
(iii) fees/levymedian cost $150
(iv) excursion/tripsmedian cost $100
(v) transportmedian cost $100. [14]
The impact on families of the pressure to pay voluntary contributions
was also brought home to the Committee in details provided by the Brotherhood
of St Laurence:
...over 86 per cent reported feeling additional stress
or increased pressure within the family as a consequence; whilst 81 per cent
reported feeling embarrassed about not being able to pay all the associated
costs.
One parent explained that she had `relationship problems with my
children because I can't afford to pay for all the school requirements'.
Yet another reported that she found the inability to afford the costs
`degrading'.
Another question asked whether the difficulties parents experienced
in meeting the costs affected their relationship with the school or
the child's teacher. Just under 45 per cent reported that
they spoke less often to the teacher as a consequence; 54 per cent
said that they had chosen not to attend school meetings; 36 per cent
said that they had not gone to parent/teacher interviews and 51 per cent
reported that they had not volunteered to help out at school. [15]
The Committee is aware that many schools endeavour to make provision
for students who cannot afford to participate in excursions, etc. However,
the exercise of this goodwill usually depends upon parents notifying the
school of their difficulties. As pointed out by the Victorian Council
of State School Organisations (VICSSO), `many parents find such a prospect
abhorrent and go without necessities to pay fees so that their children
cannot be humiliated'. [16]
Most governments have explicit policies which preclude practices which
would `punish' or humiliate students of families who are unable to pay
their voluntary contributions. In Victoria, for instance, the Schools
of the Future reference guide notes that it is important that the
basis and services provided for any contribution is fully understood
by all parents and that any practice is sympathetic to the circumstances
of individual students and parents... the government's commitment to
the voluntary nature of contributions from parents must at all times
be recognised. There are some practices which would clearly be in conflict
with this policy.
For example, it would not be appropriate for:
- students to be denied access to the standard educational program
of their school
- information about student progress to be withheld from students
and their families
- schools to impose fees for buildings and ground maintenance
and beautification
- school to impose a charge for the use of the library. [17]
Similarly, the ACT Policy on Parental Contributions to School Finances
states that `parents must not be coerced and students must not be discriminated
against for non-payment of parental financial contributions'. [18]
Despite these policies, it is clear that in many instances, considerable
pressure is brought to bear on families to pay voluntary contributions
and other levies and charges. Examples given to the Committee of measures
used by schools to encourage compliance included: withholding of academic
reports; barring students from graduation ceremonies and other school
functions; withholding of educational materials such as photocopied handouts;
marking students as absent so that Austudy or Abstudy payments cease;
[19] linking student enrolment or re-enrolment
to the payment of levies; sending out accounts for payments of levies;
providing school diaries to students only on payment of levies; pressuring
parents to sign over their EMA to the school in lieu of the payment of
voluntary contributions; seating students whose voluntary contributions
have not been paid in a special row and denying them use of books; refusing
students access to computers and libraries; refusing to allow students
whose voluntary contributions have not been paid to attend excursions
or camps; not giving Easter eggs to students whose voluntary contributions
have not been paid; allowing students to attend cooking, photography or
woodwork classes to receive `instruction' but not to participate in practical
work because they have not paid for materials, and publicly naming students
as unfinancial. [20] The Committee strongly
opposes any method to elicit payment which involves the humiliation of
students and the breaking of confidentiality.
Some of the means schools use to elicit payment of voluntary contributions
are more subtle, amounting more to sins of omission than flagrant defiance
of regulations. Schools, for instance, in their communications with parents
commonly perpetuate the perception that voluntary contributions are, in
fact, compulsory. Two governments, at least, have attempted to grapple
with this problem. In 1996 the Chief Executive of the Department of Education
and Training in the ACT `directed all school principals to review all
school newsletters, publications and letters to parents to ensure consistency
with government policy in this regard'. The department made available
examples `best practice' letters about voluntary contributions, and strongly
encouraged their use.
New South Wales went a step further and in response to a recommendation
in its 1994 Review of School Fees, directed schools to use a prescribed
letter to inform parents of the general school contributions and subject
contributions. However, as a result of a `universal adverse reaction`
by principals to this measure, the Minister sought a review of the policy.
A sample audit of schools found that the publication of the previous government's
policies on the voluntary nature of school fees, had resulted in a significant
drop in income from the collection of contributions and fees, particularly
for high schools. From this it can be inferred that when parents understand
that charges are voluntary, they are less likely to comply with invitations
to pay them. This may well explain why principals overwhelmingly rejected
the use of prescribed letters which clearly set out the voluntary nature
of the charges.
For principals it is an invidious situation. Governments strongly encourage
schools to invite voluntary contributions and impose other charges and
indeed, through their failure to fund schools adequately, force schools
to do so. Governments, at the same time, require schools to make clear
to parents that such contributions are voluntary, placing responsibility
for being the villain squarely on the shoulders of the schools. If principals
comply with requirements to make very clear to parents that the contributions
are voluntary, they are unlikely to succeed in raising the funds necessary
to run their schools.
It is of great concern to the Committee that many principals do end up
imposing considerable pressure on parents to pay their contributions.
In effect they are transferring the pressure governments place on them
to parents. The Committee is firmly of the view that the pressure placed
on families to pay voluntary contributions and levies in a public education
system is entirely unacceptable. But it is equally unacceptable for principals
to be placed in a position where they find it necessary to put pressure
on parents to raise funds to meet what is essentially a government shortfall.
The Committee strongly opposes parents being required to meet this shortfall.
However, while such voluntary contributions and other charges exist, steps
must be taken to ensure that parents are not pressured nor students disadvantaged
by school practices in relation to these payments.
In addition to making voluntary contributions, families are also expected
to pay subject levies, particularly at secondary school. Much that has
been said of voluntary contributions can also be said of subject levies,
particularly in terms of the difficulty parents on low income families
have in paying them. Subject levies, in the Committee's view, are very
regressive and clearly contradict governments' claims that they provide
the basics for education. The reliance of these claims upon the drawing
of a crude distinction in Education legislation between 'instruction'
and 'the materials associated with that instruction' is an issue that
will be discussed in the next section.
For students from families on low income, subject levies can represent
a significant barrier to access to some subjects. Some families will struggle
to meet the levies attached to subjects their children wish to study.
Many students, however, will not even entertain the idea of imposing that
extra strain on their parents or will know without asking that they cannot
consider subjects with a high subject levy. In this way, the imposition
of subject levies seriously disadvantages some students and makes a mockery
of commitments to equality of opportunity for all students. In the Committee's
view, no student should have their choice of subject determined by their
parents' capacity to pay the levies involved.
In summary, the Committee made the following findings:
- voluntary contributions and subject levies impose a considerable burden
on families already facing difficulties meeting the costs of schooling.
They cause strain within the family and affect the parents and their
children's relationship with the school, all to the detriment of the
childrens' education
- despite efforts by education authorities to limit the actions that
can be taken by schools to `persuade' parents to pay contributions and
levies, strategies that punish, humiliate or embarrass students from
non-paying families are still in evidence and are totally unacceptable
- student assistance schemes are of assistance to low income families
but are in most cases insufficient to cover voluntary contributions,
subject levies and the other costs associated with schooling such as
excursions, camps, uniforms etc
- many schools fail to correct, or actively encourage, the common perception
that contributions and subject fees are compulsory even when this is
not the case
- the strong perception (or indeed the reality in some states) that
subject levies are compulsory affects students' subject choicefor example,
students may not even consider asking their parents to do subjects which
entail a fee
- schools fail to observe the strict letter of government policy guidelines
or departmental instructions about voluntary contributions, subject
levies and other charges because of the need to raise funds to meet
the shortfall in government funding
- although many schools make provision for families experiencing genuine
financial hardship (such as allowing students to participate in excursions,
even when unable to pay the costs involved), the experience of having
to approach the schools is so humiliating for parents that many adopt
strategies such as quietly keeping children away from school on excursion
days
- because of the lack of statistical data about private fundraising
in schools, and very little research on school-related expenditure by
low income families, it is difficult to gauge the full extent to which
families are adversely affected by requirements to pay contributions
and fees.
As stated in the previous chapter, the Committee believes that governments
are responsible for the providing adequate funding for government schools.
This funding should be sufficient to provide the instruction and learning
resources required to enable students to receive an education across the
eight key learning areas to a level consistent with the achievement of
the National Goals of Schooling. The Committee accepts that there is a
place for voluntary contributions provided that they are truly voluntary
and only for items that are clearly extra to the eight Key Learning Areas.
The Committee, however, believes that the imposition of subject levies
blatantly contradicts commitments by governments to provide for a basic
education. Accordingly, the Committee, opposes subject levies or the imposition
of any compulsory charges for materials or services and recommends that
they be abolished. Governments must meet any shortfall that results from
this step.
In the interim, it is important that governments monitor and report on
the operation of voluntary contributions schemes and arrangements for
subject levies and other charges to ensure that parents are not pressured
nor students discriminated against as a consequence of non payment. Parent
organisations should also have a key role in performing these duties.
The Committee RECOMMENDS that each State and Territory
establish a committee comprising senior education department officials
and nominees of peak parent associations to:
- monitor the amounts set and paid as voluntary contributions,
subject levies and other charges
- monitor schools' compliance with departmental policy that
contributions and levies be voluntary
- record, receive and act on complaints concerning contributions,
levies and other charges.
Recommendation 3
|
It is imperative that all parties are fully aware of the responsibilities,
rights and obligations involved in arrangements for inviting contributions
or requiring the payment of any levies or charges. Governments must make
explicit what is provided by government schools at public expense. As
stated above, in the Committee's view, the minimum requirement is for
the provision of instruction and learning resources sufficient to enable
students to receive an education, across the eight key learning areas,
to a level consistent with the achievement of the National Goals of Schooling.
Government policy on voluntary contributions or the levying of any other
charges and what they all are must be clearly delineated. This information
should be provided to all parents at the start of each school year in
the form of a Charter of School Education.
|
The Committee RECOMMENDS that government schools distribute
to each family at the start of each school year a Charter of School
Education. This Charter shall set out:
- the nature and extent of the education that will be provided
in government schools at public expense
- government policy on voluntary contributions, and any
subject levies and charges for areas outside the eight Key Learning
Areas
- contact details of the committee appointed to monitor
the voluntary contributions and arrangements for subject levies
and other charges
- information on any financial assistance provided at the
system level for families in cases of genuine financial hardship
to assist with the costs of schooling.
Recommendation 4
|
Schools should also make explicit to parents any charges they make for
the areas outside the eight key learning areas, the amounts requested
as voluntary contributions and the uses to which they will be put, and
information on any assistance provided at the school level to families
in cases of genuine financial hardship. This information should be attached
to the Charter of School Education described above.
The Committee RECOMMENDS that schools provide a
statement to be attached to the Charter of School Education referred
to in Recommendation 4. The statement should:
- make explicit to parents any charges the school sets for
the areas outside the Eight Key Learning Areas
- identify the amounts requested as voluntary contributions
and any other charges and the uses to which they will be put
- provide information about any assistance provided at the
school level for families in cases of genuine financial hardship.
Recommendation 5
|
The Committee heard of a number of instances in which students were embarrassed,
even if unintentionally, by the public nature of some of the communications
relating to requests for the payment of contributions, levies etc. It
is important that any communications between families and the school regarding
the payment of contributions and other charges be strictly confidential
so as to avoid providing any occasion for the embarrassment or humiliation
of students or families.
Schools have generally asked and will continue to ask parents to pay
for the costs of extras including excursions, camps, materials costs for
subjects outside the eight key learning areas etc. To enable all students
to participate equally in the programs offered by schools, it is imperative
that systems offer financial assistance to families who are genuinely
unable to meet the cost of schooling.
The Committee RECOMMENDS that all States and Territories
develop or modify their student assistance schemes to ensure that:
- eligibility be linked to the Commonwealth Health Card
with provision for other hardship circumstances to be taken into
account
- the purposes of the payment be specified and that payments
not be used for anything other than those purposes.
Recommendation 6
|
In the interests of ensuring that no child is denied access to learning
any subject, consideration should also be given to the creation of a central
fund which would cover any charges attached to subjects outside the eight
key learning areas. Schools would be able to apply to these funds for
reimbursement of the cost of tuition and materials associated with providing
access to eligible students. Eligibility would be linked to the Commonwealth
health card but would also have a merit component based on an assessment
of the student's motivation and commitment to that subject.
The evidence presented by the Smith Family and the Brotherhood of St Laurence
indicates that the costs associated with schooling may far exceed the
dollar value of current student assistance schemes. The Committee considers
that there is a need to firmly establish the costs to families associated
with schooling in order to determine the level of assistance to offer
families on low incomes. Given the Commonwealth's commitment to the achievement
of national equity across schools, it is appropriate that it undertake
this research.
| The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth
Government commission a major national research project on the costs
to families associated with government schooling and their relative
impact on low income families.
Recommendation 7
|
Footnotes
[1] Submission no 26, vol 1, p 198 (WACOSS Emergency
Relief Agencies Forum)
[2] Smith Family study entitled Educationwho
can afford it? February 1997, p 1
[3] Brotherhood of St Laurence. Education
costssurvey results, sent March 1997, p 3
[4] Brotherhood of St Laurence. Education
costssurvey results, sent March 1997, p 4
[5] Submission no 69, vol 5, pp 136-137, (Department
of Education, Community & Cultural Development)
[6] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 117 (South Australian
Government)
[7] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 117 (South Australian
Government)
[8] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 118 (South Australian
Government)
[9] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 121 (South Australian
Government)
[10] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 121 (South
Australian Government)
[11] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 121 (South
Australian Government)
[12] Transcript of evidence, Adelaide,
31 January 1997, p 537 (Mr Ralph, South Australian Government)
[13] Brotherhood of St Laurence. Education
costssurvey results, sent March 1997, pp 1, 2
[14] Brotherhood of St Laurence. Education
costssurvey results, sent March 1997, p 2
[15] Brotherhood of St Laurence. Education
costssurvey results, sent March 1997, p 4
[16] Submission no 28, vol 2, p 30 (VICSSO)
[17] Submission no 64, vol 5, pp 80, 81 (Victorian
Government)
[18] Schools Bulletin no 574 supplement
`Parental contributions to school finances' 21 April, 1994
[19] Submission 26, vol 1, p 199 (WACOSS Emergency
Relief Agencies Forum)
[20] Submission 28, vol 2, pp 2829 (VICSSO)