CHAPTER 3 Continued
Equity considerations
Impact on schools
In every State and Territory, there was evidence of considerable disparity
between schools in terms of their capacity to raise funds through voluntary
contributions, levies and other forms of fundraising. According to the
New South Wales Federation of School Community Organisations (FOSCO),
the amount set for the general service contribution can range from $5
to over $100 in primary schools. In secondary schools the range is even
greater and can be a high as $170 in year 7 to $200 in year 12. [1]
Disparity is also evident in the findings of a survey of 122 Victorian
Schools of the Future conducted by Monash University. The school that
felt it was most able to raise funds predicted it would raise $522 per
pupil per year. The school least able to raise funds predicted it would
raise $19 per pupil. [2]
The ACT Council of P&C Association's survey also revealed large disparities
in the level of voluntary contributions. Its findings included:
- basic rates set for contributions vary from $35$80 per student
- considerable variation in response rates
- extreme disparity in the level of contributions available to primary
schools. `In 1993, the lowest total contribution rate received by a
school was $6 per student while the highest was $109, nearly twenty
times that of the lowest rate'. [3]
The survey also revealed large disparities between high schools in the
total level of funds raised from sources other than voluntary contributions
and subject levies. `For example, one school raised $40,000 in 1993 while
two others raised less than $1000. The average level of funds raised pre
student was $25 and $38 in two schools while in three others the figures
were $1, $4 and $6'. [4]
The South Australian Government provided the Committee with figures which
illustrated considerable variation in the level of charges across South
Australia. `Secondary school charges, for example, in 1995, charged from
$95 per annum to $315 per annum, with and average
of $158 per annum (plus some additional subject charges). Primary
school charges ranged from $35 per annum to $200 per annum,
with an average of $107 per annum'. [5] Such disparities are compounded by the differential
capacities of schools to raise private funds through other means.
[There] is vast disparity between the amounts which schools are
able to raise.
In 1995 some schools raised, with great effort, less than $1000
while others were able to raise up to $20 000. Our data shows some
schools are able to raise as much as $100 per student or more, significantly
more than the level of funding per student provided by the Government,
while others struggle to raise as little as $2.80 per student
through local fund-raising. [6]
The figures provided by the Tasmanian Government on the levies charged
by schools in Tasmania also indicate marked variation in schools' capacity
to raise funds [7].
| Levy statistics over all sectors |
| Student year |
Average charge |
Maximum charge |
Minimum charge |
| Kindergarten |
$71.08
|
$170.00
|
$20.00
|
| Year 6 |
$106.11
|
$230.00
|
$50.00
|
| Year 10 |
$249.75
|
$630.50
|
$75.00
|
| Senior secondary colleges levies and charges |
| Levies and charges |
Course 1
Academic emphasis |
Course 2
Vocational emphasis |
| Average |
$328
|
$362
|
| Minimum |
$210
|
$187
|
| Maximum |
$373
|
$550
|
Source: Submission no 63, vol 5, pp 26, 27 (Minister for Education
and Vocational Training, Tasmania)
The Committee notes the somewhat different perspective on these matters
taken by the Australian Secondary Principals Association. ASPA's view
is that `while locally raised funds may lead to some apparent inequalities,
on balance there would be significantly more inequality if they were not
available'. [8] ASPA also contends that:
access to [privately raised] funds in fact reduces inequalities
in that it allows parents and school communities to take their own initiatives
to redress disadvantage. For example, country parents use highly innovative
fundraising methods to provide opportunities for their children to be
involved in activities not otherwise possible. Further, such funding
allows government schools to successfully compete to attract and retain
students and to provide them with the experiences which match those
offered in non-government schools. Another point worth noting is that
the raising of funds and enjoying the results of them forms an important
part of the social fabric in many communities. [9]
The Committee has commented elsewhere on the pressure under which school
principals find themselves when it comes to meeting the shortfall in public
funds available to their schools. While the Committee applauds the efforts
of principals to generate funds for their schools, and the evidence shows
that some schools are able to do well as a result, there are many schools
for whom such opportunities are simply not available.
For example, the following account from the Footscray Primary School
Council illustrates how such disparity manifests itself at the local school
level:
We find it frustrating when schools in the eastern suburbs can
raise up to $60 000 from one event whilst our school struggles
to raise $1000 for one major event. Because of the cultural background
of many of our families, some cultures do not have a concept of a school
contribution or the importance of fundraising. Many of our families
come from war-torn countries and are having enough trouble re-establishing
themselves in a new country. Many come form non-English speaking backgrounds,
have no furniture and limited clothing and resources. The school community
realises this and is reluctant to pressure families into fundraising
activities or school contributions.
Over 45 per cent of our families qualify and receive
the Education Maintenance Allowance and many are unemployed which reflects
the general population of the City of Maribyrnong as cited in the 1991
census.
Our general school population is poor, parents do not have funds
to pay fees or excursion costs. Although it is the school's policy to
cover children who can't pay for excursions and activities, so that
they do not miss out, it is a strain on the school's budget. All children
are funded a small percentage of the cost of most activities through
the Victorian Equity program, however, for some families this is not
enough. [10]
The evidence in a number of submissions, and an unstated assumption in
many others submissions was that the level of fees, contributions etc,
set by a school correlated directly with the socio economic status of
the community surrounding it. However, this is not always the case as
was brought out in Howard and Coulter's study which found that the average
general fee was higher for the 14 Disadvantaged Schools Program (DSP)
schools in the study than for the 36 non-DSP schools. [11]
Dr Tony Townsend also alerted the Committee to the complexity of
patterns of equity noting that rural schools are not always worse off
than their city counterparts, nor are secondary schools always better
off than primary schools. [12] The important
point is that there are significant differences in the levels of resources
enjoyed by schools, and such resources are exacerbated by the private
and commercial fundraising activities of schools.
Some State Governments have sought to redress disadvantage by developing
funding formulae which take into account the socio-economic indices associated
with particular communities. Details provided by the Tasmanian Government
on the effect of the States' resourcing formula on schools with differing
socio-economic status highlight the fact that most State Governments take
equity issues seriously. The details pertain to two schools in the Hobart
area, selected on the basis of similarity of enrolment numbers and other
index characteristics, but at opposite ends of the socio-economic spectrum
with 86 per cent of students at Clarendale Primary School eligible
for STAS and 11 per cent of students at Waimea Heights Primary
School eligible.
Summary of 1996 school resource package funding
Clarendon Vale and Waimea Heights Primary Schools
|
Clarendon Vale
$ |
Waimea Heights
$ |
| General support grant
Per capita
Educational needs
Distance
|
30 800
23 905
543
|
29 394
4 155
230
|
| Total general support grant |
55 248
|
33 779
|
| Maintenance and minor works
Per capita
Building maintenance needs
Educational needs
Distance
Maintenance plan preparation
|
5 656
11 976
1 827
166
0
|
5 398
12 493
318
70
562
|
| Total maintenance and minor works |
19 625
|
18 841
|
| General allocations
Energy
Kindergarten aides (Districts)
Kindergarten aides
Relief
Aboriginal aides
Audit funding
Student assistance scheme
Students with disabilities (Cat B)
Medical supplies
|
29 022
1 038
7 678
7 097
4 087
300
7 799
3 737
91
|
12 667
778
4 669
6 835
548
300
925
0
0
|
| Total general allocations |
60 849
|
26 722
|
| Special programs
Disadvantaged and country
areas program
International students program
|
28 927
0
|
0
500
|
| Total special programs |
28 927
|
500
|
| Total resourcing funding |
164 649
|
79 842
|
Source: Submission no 69, vol 5, p 149 (Department of Education,
Community & Cultural Development, Tasmania)
In Victoria, the Government funds schools at differential rates, taking
into account the relative wealth of the community attending the school.
Victorian officials argued that this approach mitigated the problems of
schools having different capacities to raise private funds.
The point you make is that some schools in some areas may be able
to raise more outside money by voluntary levies compared to other areas.
All schools raise voluntary money through one source or another,all
schools, from the smallest to the largest, irrespective of suburb. They
all have some kind of fundraising. However, because of the way we allocate
our school global budget,that is not based on enrolment solely; it is
based on the composition of the students of that school,there is a differential
between how we fund a school in the eastern suburbs and how we fund
a school in the western suburbs.
...
A school in a low socioeconomic area will probably get through
their school global budget up to a third more funds than a school in
an affluent area, both primary and secondary,probably primary is 25 per cent.
...
If a school in one area is getting through their school global
budgets approximately a third more on the number of kids they have because
of the cohort and the profile of those children, then five per cent
differential in terms of levies coming into schools is catered for from
the voluntary money. If it were a level playing field, then I would
agree with your argument; but it is not a level playing field. The schools
start off with different funding bases from government funds. [13]
The work of the Victorian Ministry's Education Committee chaired by Professor
Brian Caldwell (the Caldwell Committee) has resulted in the development
and implementation of modified funding formulae involving a range of indices
of disadvantage. These indices are both `student sensitive' and `school
sensitive'. According to Dr Tony Townsend, the index `is perhaps the fairest
... seen by this author anywhere in the world'. [14]
However, even with a formula as apparently effective as the one developed
from the Caldwell Report, Dr Townsend observes that it will only make
a difference `if the total quantum of funds made available by the Government
is sufficient to deal with all those who fit the category [of disadvantaged].
At this point in time, that quantum of funds does not seem to be sufficient'.
[15] The Committee agrees with the view that
neither the best indices in the world nor the fairest allocation method
for distributing publicly provided resources between schools will still
not resolve the problems relating to inequity described by witnesses in
this inquiry if the amount being distributed is not enough to cover the
real costs of schools. As long as this is the case, schools will be forced
to resort to raising funds privately, a practice that clearly leads to
inequity. Such considerations only reinforce the Committee's view that
the inadequacy of Government funding remains the key issue requiring resolution.
In assessing the impact on equity of variable private levels of funding
flowing to schools, the Committee took note of the suggestion that compulsory
fees were more equitable than voluntary contributions or levies in that
they ensured all parents contributed to the costs of schooling.
Witnesses who made this claim also proposed that any system of compulsory
fees should be backed by safety net schemes (such as the School Card)
which would assist families in need to meet such fees. This combination
would enable schools to raise the money needed while seeking to protect
families in genuinely difficult financial circumstances. It would also
remove the tension that exists within school communities resulting from
some families regarding themselves as subsidising others.
The Committee considers that a proper assessment of such a proposal must
have due regard for both the legislative and moral obligations upon Governments
to provide universally accessible schooling at public expense. These obligations
have been traditionally understood as Government's responsibility to provide
a `free and secular education'. A reading of state Education Acts in fact
reveals a commitment to the provision of free `instruction' or `tuition'.
This allows a distinction to be made between the broader concept of education
and the narrower one denoted by the words 'instruction' or 'tuition' ,
a convenient legal nicety that states rely upon both to argue that education
never has been `free', and to justify the imposition of subject levies
along with in some States, the compulsory payment of fees. Although the
use of the words `instruction' or `tuition' instead of `education' afflicts
most, if not all, Education Acts in Australia, it is the broader word
`education' which gives the Acts their title. The substitution thereafter
of the word `education' by the words `instruction' or `tuition', and the
retreat from the provision of free education which this substitution represents
is, in the Committee's view, a shabby ploy. This reliance on the hairsplitting
exercise of distinguishing between education and instruction or tuition
fails to persuade the Committee that there is any justification at all
for the levying of compulsory charges. Moreover, it reflects an impoverished
spirit on the part of Governments who are singularly failing to meet their
obligations in education
The Committee notes the contrast between the diminished commitment to
education reflected in Australia's legislation and the view articulated
at the international level by the various covenants and treaties which
have been ratified by Australia. For example, Article 26 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights declares that: `Everyone has the right
to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and
fundamental stages'. Article 13.1 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights restates the right of everyone
to education. Article 13.2 calls on the parties to the covenant to recognise
that `with a view to achieving the full realisation of this right':
Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all;
[13.2a] and
Secondary education ... shall be made generally available and accessible
to all, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive
introduction of free education. [13.2b]
Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states:
State Parties [to the Convention] recognise the right of the child
to education and with a view to achieving this right progressively,
and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall in particular:
(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;
(b) Encourage the development of ... secondary education ... available
and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures, such as
the introduction of free education.
The Committee considers that Australia can only properly address the
requirements of its obligations to the community by ensuring that Governments
provide, at public expense, the instruction and learning resources necessary
for students to receive an education across the eight key learning areas
to a level consistent with the achievement of the National Goals of Schooling.
Furthermore, the Committee urges State Governments to amend their Education
Acts by inserting the word `education' in place of `tuition' or `instruction'
thereby restoring their commitment to the provision of a free and secular
education.
| The Committee RECOMMENDS that State and Territory
Governments amend their Education Acts by inserting the word 'education'
in place of 'instruction' or 'tuition'.
Recommendation 8
|
In the Committee's view, it is clearly the case that the differential
capacity of schools to raise funds is a major contributor to inequity
between schools. The policy of devolving responsibility to schools has
both pressured schools to intensify their fundraising and allowed them
much greater scope for commercial and entrepreneurial activity. The net
effect of the policy, albeit inadvertently, has therefore been to intensify
inequity within the system. By contrast, education departments, and other
government agencies, are going to considerable efforts to develop mechanisms
for allocating public funds in the most equitable way. Such a contradictory
situation is patently absurd.
The Committee considers that equity is of paramount concern. Governments,
too, insist that equity is a major consideration in their policy and resourcing
arrangements. It has been amply demonstrated that the push towards increased
local private fundraising in schools is detrimental to equity, and that
some kind of centrally managed mechanism is required if equity objectives
are to be achieved. While there are a number of benefits to be gained
through school based management, the enhancement of equity is not one
of them.
This reinforces the Committee's view that Governments must accept full
responsibility for the funding of public schools and in particular for
ensuring that all available funds, from whatever source, are distributed
equitably. This responsibility should be shared by all governments. In
the Committee's view, an immediate step to be undertaken by the Commonwealth
Government is to restore the level of funding for targeted equity programs
to the 1995/96 levels.
| The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth Government
restore the level of funding for targeted equity programs to the 1995/96
level.
Recommendation 9
|
Footnotes
[1] Submission no 50, vol 4, p 89 (NSW Federation
of School Community Organisations (FOSCO))
[2] Submission no 27, vol 2, p 5 (Dr Townsend)
[3] Submission no 48, vol 4, p 5 (ACT Council
of Parents & Citizens Associations)
[4] Submission no 48, vol 4, pp 58 (ACT Council
of Parents & Citizens Associations)
[5] Submission no 67, vol 5, p 121 (South Australian
Government)
[6] Submission no 38, vol 3, p 27 (South Australian
Institute of Teachers (SAIT))
[7] Submission no 63, vol 5, pp 26, 27 (Minister
for Education and Vocational Training, Tasmania)
[8] Submission no 30, vol 2, p 54 (Australian
Secondary Principals' Association (ASPA))
[9] Submission no 30, vol 2, p 54 (ASPA)
[10] Submission no 13, vol 1, p 107 (Footscray
Primary School Council)
[11] Howard and Coulter. Scrounging to meet
the shortfall, p 25
[12] Submission no 27, vol 2, p 8 (Dr Townsend)
[13] Transcript of evidence, Melbourne,
3 September 1996, pp 237238 (Mr Peck, Victorian Government)
[14] Submission no 27, vol 2, p 9 (Dr Townsend)
[15] Submission no 27, vol 2, p 9 (Dr Townsend)