Government Senators' Report
by SENATORS TIERNEY, TROETH AND FERRIS
The majority report is premised to a considerable extent on the claim
that governments are abrogating their responsibilities to provide for
free public education. The Government Senators reject this claim on a
number of grounds. Firstly, an examination of the Education Acts
fails to persuade the Government Senators that any States or Territories
are contravening their legislation. The Government Senators therefore
dissent from Recommendation 8 which recommends that State and Territory
Governments amend their Education Acts by inserting the word `education'
in place of `instruction' or `tuition'.
Secondly, there is evidence, including the ABS figures reproduced below,
which indicates that governments have steadily increased expenditure on
schools.
In support of its claim that there has been a decline in government commitment
to education, the majority report relies on figures relating to expenditure
on education as a proportion of GDP. Such figures are fairly meaningless
in that they ignore contextual changes including changes in real and perceived
resource needs in education. The report also cites figures relating to
the Commonwealth and State Outlays on Education. These figures also fail
to reflect other factors that influence them including changing priorities
and roles of governments. As the majority report itself notes, '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.' Given this
admission, the Government Senators consider it is questionable to use
the data described above as evidence of a rEducation in commitment to education.
The Government Senators recognise, however, that developments including
higher retention rates, the introduction of technology and an expanded
curriculum have resulted in significant increases in the costs of schooling.
In view of these developments, we consider that it is appropriate for
governments to determine the real cost of schooling with a view to reappraising
current funding formula and levels of funding. We do not, however, see
the need for the establishment of yet another national body to undertake
this task. This is a matter for the Commonwealth, State and Territory
Governments and MCEETYA is the appropriate body to deal with it. The Government
Senators dissent from Recommendation 2 and make the following recommendation
in its place:
|
The Government Senators recommend that governments reappraise
their current funding formula given the changed nature of schooling
including: higher retention rates; an expanded curriculum and
the introduction of new technology.
|
In rejecting the recommendation that governments fund public schools
at a level sufficient to deliver the appropriate standard of education
within the eight Key Learning Areas, it is also pertinent to refer to
the views of principals who, as the majority report points out, shoulder
most of the responsibility for private fundraising.
This organisation believes 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 desirable or even to replace
the funds not received as a result of further negative publicity. [1]
The Government Senators find these views reasonable.
The majority report argues that it is the 'responsibility of governments
to fund schools to a standard commensurate with the expectations of
the community and the demands of an expanding curriculum'. In the Government
Senators view, this reflects `a blank cheque` mentality that in itself
is quite irresponsible. In our view, it is the responsibility of governments
to make decisions about how best to utilise and distribute limited resources.
In relation to schooling, these decisions involve an evaluation of the
resources required to deliver a basic education to all students.
As mentioned in the majority report, higher community expectations
of schools have also contributed to the rising costs of schooling. The
community must accept that although there is no ceiling to community
expectations, there are limits on government funds. If the community
seeks more from schools in terms of breadth of curriculum and higher
standards of facilities and resources, it is reasonable to expect the
community to make a greater contribution either through taxation or
through increased private fundraising. There is also an equity argument
to make concerning parents being expected to contribute to the costs
of schooling, namely that it is more equitable for those using a service,
in this case parents with children in government schools, to contribute
more to the costs of providing those services than those who are not
using or directly benefiting from the service.
The Government Senators also reject the majority report's assessment
of an adequate level of funding as being one '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'.
It is extremely difficult to distinguish between the essentials and
the extras involved in delivering the eight Key Learning Areas. For
instance, education in many of the Key Learning Areas increasingly involves
the use of computers. As schools increasingly incorporate technology
in their teaching methods, at what point can it be said that it becomes
essential rather than an extra? There is a fluidity surrounding teaching,
curriculum development and the use of resources that is incompatible
with rigid distinctions between basics and extras and, in terms of achievement
of the learning, between sufficient and additional. The Government Senators
argue that students are better served by an attitude that recognises
the organic nature of education and which supports initiative and flexibility.
In the Coalitions Senators' view, the majority report is seriously
weakened by the anecdotal nature of much of the evidence and its tendency
to simplify an argument and overstate a case. The report gives the impression
that the problems associated with the private and commercial funding
of government schools are not only very recent and closely related to
the development of policies which favour privatisation and commercialisation
but they are problems of considerable magnitude.
As for these problems being recent, the Government Senators point out
that the majority report itself quotes from a 1984 Report by the Commonwealth
Schools Commission which described a scenario very similar to that described
in the majority report. This is simply not a new problem. Subject levies
are not a result of a user pay philosophy. They have always been part
of the educational scene just as parents have always made voluntary
contributions.
The majority report would have made a far more useful contribution
if it had attempted to assess the true extent of the problem. Yet in
place of sound evaluation, the report offers hearsay evidence and in
some cases, no evidence at all. In the evidence that is provided there
is no sense of the scale of a problem. For instance we are told that
subject levies influence students' subject choice, that there is evidence
of schools using strategies that punish and humiliate students in order
to 'encourage' compliance with payment of contributions or levies and
that parents keep children away from school on excursion days because
of their inability to pay for the excursion. Yet, as the majority report
itself notes, there is no hard evidence on which to base these claims.
As the report says, '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'. It is on this basis that the Government Senators support
Recommendation 7 which recommends that the Commonwealth Government commission
a major national research project on the cost to families associated
with government schooling and their relative impact on low income families.
The report also employs hyperbole to make its arguments. Some of this
simply weakens the argument but there are instances which are more objectionable
in nature. For instance, the use of the words 'shabby ploy' implies
a mischievous intention on the part of governments in the wording contained
in their Education Acts. It ignores the fact that an assessment of the
suitability of certain words in legislation is linked to a view about
the appropriate role of governments.
The Government Senators share the concerns for equity raised in the majority
report. We reject, however, many of the conclusions reached. In particular,
we reject the assertion that the net effect of the policy of devolving
authority to schools has 'been to intensify inequity within the system'.
Little systematic evidence is provided to support this claim. Indeed,
if devolution of authority had led to inequity, we would be expecting
principals to be the first to object. In fact, principals presented an
entirely different point of view to the Committee and as quoted in the
majority report, contended 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'. [2]
Much of the evidence relating to equity cited in the report persuades
the Government Senators that equity considerations are given very serious
consideration at both the school and the system level. The funding allocation
methods used in Tasmania and Victoria for instance clearly go a long
way towards redressing disadvantage. The report also fails to recognise
that there is additional assistance through Austudy and Abstudy for
eligible students. The report has not demonstrated that students are
missing out. We, therefore, reject calls for an increase in Commonwealth
funding for targeted equity programs and hence dissent from Recommendation
9.
As well as devising methods to distribute resources most equitably
across the system, most governments have also taken steps to assist
individual families. Victoria's EMA, South Australia's School Card and
the Student Assistance Schemes of Tasmania and Western Australia represent
a recognition by governments that some families do require assistance.
The Government Senators consider the majority report's interpretation
of these schemes as recognition by governments that they are underfunding
schools as fallacious. These schemes are designed to benefit families
meet the costs associated with schooling. They were not in the first
place designed to help schools.
In our view, these schemes do ameliorate the disadvantage to low income
families that may otherwise result from requests for voluntary contributions,
subject levies and other charges. The Government Senators support Recommendation
6 relating to the student assistance schemes. Where compulsory charges
are levied, we consider that it is important that that State Governments
provide assistance to low income families to help them meet such payments.
We decline to comment on whether compulsory fees are more equitable
as was argued by some witnesses and consider such decisions are a matter
for the States and Territories.
The Government Senators agree that guidelines for voluntary contributions
and levies should be developed but note that most States and Territories
have already taken this step. If difficulties do exist in relation to
school practices in soliciting payments from parents, then the solution
lies in better monitoring procedures. The Government Senators support
Recommendation 3 which involves the establishment of a committee to
monitor voluntary contributions and other charges levied by schools.
We reject, however, the implication in Recommendation 3b that levies
be voluntary. This is a matter for States and Territories to determine.
We also agree that it is appropriate that parents be informed of school
policy in relation to voluntary contributions, levies and other charges.
We consider it important that schools do not solely focus on inputs
to education. They must make clear to parents their educational outcome
goals and how they plan to achieve these goals. We support aspects of
Recommendation 5 which recommends that schools provide a statement to
parents with information about any contributions set by the school and
information about any assistance available to families in cases of genuine
financial hardship. We reject, however, the implication in the words
'set for the areas outside the eight Key Learning Areas' in Recommendation
5a and consider that the issue of where charges should be levied is
a State and Territory matter.
|
The Government Senators recommend that any statement
to parents describing contributions and charges and financial
assistance available to parents should include an outline of
the school's goals relating to educational outcome and how it
plans to achieve these goals.
|
It is also, in our view, appropriate for governments to inform families
of policies on voluntary contributions, etc, and to provide details
of the committee appointed to monitor voluntary contributions and
with information on financial assistance available for low income
families. We do not, however, consider it necessary for governments
to provide details of the nature and extent of education that will
be provided in government schools at public expense nor that any of
this information should be presented in the form of a School Charter.
The Government Senators, therefore, dissent from Recommendation 4.
We make the following Recommendation instead.
|
The Government Senators recommend that government schools
distribute to each family at the start of each school year
a statement setting out
-
government policy on voluntary contributions, and
any subject levies and charges
-
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.
|
Another matter that essentially belongs to States and Territories
matters is the implementation of technology. As the majority report
makes clear, most States and Territories have embarked on strategic
initiatives to implement technology in schools. That school communities
are also clearly contributing to the task is evidence of a sense
of shared responsibility held by communities for improving the resource
levels of our schools. The Government Senators consider that the
implementation of technology is a matter for the States and therefore
dissent from Recommendation 13 which recommends that the Commonwealth
Government consults with State and Territory Governments to develop
a statement of national principals regarding computer based information
technologies in schools and to look at funding implications. We
also dissent from Recommendation 14 which involves the Commonwealth
Government reappraising its Capital Grants Program with a view to
increasing funding for technology in schools.
Such partnerships between the community and its schools often contribute
more than the material benefits that may flow to the school as a
result. Communities are strengthened through a sense of shared goals
and activities jointly undertaken to achieve these goals. Many of
these partnerships are between the parents and the school itself
but increasingly partnerships are developing between businesses
and schools in the form of sponsorship arrangements. These have
the potential to invest significant levels of funds into schools.
The Government Senators share the concerns raised in the majority
report relating to equity and the possible exploitation of students
and schools that may result from sponsorship. We consider, however,
that provided sponsorship arrangements are governed by guidelines
which ensure educational and ethical values remain at the foreground,
there are enormous benefits to be derived from such relationships.
There are strong indications that businesses in Australia, as elsewhere,
are increasingly interested in becoming involved in not-for-profit
activities. This growing sense of social responsibility is something
that governments can harness to the community's adva ntage. To limit
the use to which funds from sponsors can be put, as recommended
in the majority report, to the provision of additional opportunities
for students beyond those provided through the eight Key Learning
Areas can only disadvantage students. The much lauded School
Sport 2000 Foundation and the involvement of computer
companies in major projects such as Apple's ACOT research project,
may be immediate casualities of such a policy. The Government Senators
therefore dissent from Recommendation 10 c which specifies sponsorship
assistance being used to provide additional opportunities for students
beyond those provided through the eight Key Learning Areas.
The Government Senators believe that provided schools follow guidelines
as described above, limits should not be placed on their entrepreneurial
activities by governments. To insist that all major sponsorship
arrangements are conducted centrally would in our estimation result
in significant lower levels of funds being raised for schools. It
is likely that businesses would perceive the benefit from sponsorship
arrangements considerably diluted by collective arrangements. This
is not to deny the enormous value in specific initiatives such as
the School Sport 2000 Foundation. We applaud this initiative
as a one-off event that may well become a model for other specific
projects. Such initiatives may well provide a central pool of funds
that governments may use to attend to inequities that may arise
if some schools find it difficult to attract sponsorship but it
is not a model upon which to base all sponsorship arrangements.
The Government Senators dissent from Recommendation 11. Instead
we make the following recommendation.
|
The Government Senators recommend that State and
Territory Governments undertake initiatives similar to the
School Sport 2000 Foundation with the purpose of establishing
a central pool of funds to be used to redress inequities
that may arise from some schools finding it difficult to
attract sponsorship.
|
Footnotes
[1] Submission no 30, vol 2, p 52
(ASPA)
[2] Submission no 30, vol 2, p 54
(ASPA)