Page 669 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is an imbalance in the provision of funding to government and non-government schools by the Australian and state and territory governments. In particular, the Australian Government could play a greater role in supporting state and territory governments to meet the needs of disadvantaged students in both government and non-government schools.
As expected, there have been some comments made in the media over the past two days that this and other findings and recommendations made in the report may be considered an attack on the non-government education sector, the Catholic and independent schools. There have been some very tired and old arguments that the issue of schools funding is some sort of class war or is formed by a simplistic “us versus them” mentality and is not actually about the very real and contemporary issue of the slow decline of the educational standards, achievements and outcomes of too many of our children and young people.
I will move to the driving issues that initiated and were examined in the Gonski report later in my speech. Let me now continue with some of the key findings, in order to restore the real issues to this discussion today. Finding 8 is:
In recognising the many benefits of government and non-government school systems, future funding arrangements for schooling should continue to enable systems to make decisions around the redistribution and allocation of resources at the local level, with enhanced accountability.
Again, when I read this, I see a relatively fair and even balanced statement, one that should not create any great waves. Finding 10 goes on to say:
Public funding arrangements need to reflect the nature of the educational challenges faced by a system or school given its characteristics and student population, regardless of whether it is in the government or non-government sector.
I ask members to consider this point again in the coming debate, as this goes to the heart of the issue and finishes with a blunt reminder that this report is about the needs of students, regardless of whether they are in the government or non-government sector. And in what is hopefully becoming a pattern, I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to finding 13, which clearly states:
The most efficient way to meet the Australian Government’s announcement that no school would lose a dollar per student as a result of this review is through a minimum public contribution towards the cost of schooling in non-government schools.
I believe that this finding speaks for itself.
The pattern I am drawing attention to is that the thrust of the Gonski report—the essence, if you will—is that funding should be based on need, wherever that need is.
What was the issue that was the driver behind the Gonski report’s recommendations? From my understanding of the report, apart from the need for a more transparent and fair system, the issue that rises again and again is educational performance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video