Too many furphies in school debate

by Kevin Donnelly

As the National Australia Bank discovered in June, funding to non-government schools is a controversial issue. After arguing in its submission to the review of funding chaired by David Gonski that non-government schools deserved support, such was the condemnation by critics that NAB was forced to “clarify" its position.

The school funding debate is a controversial issue and characterised by misinformation. Non-government school critics like Australian Education Union (AEU) president Angelo Gavrielatos argue that government schools are starved of funding while non-government schools are over-funded because of government largesse.

The reality proves otherwise. Based on Productivity Commission figures, while government school students receive $12,639 on average in state and federal recurrent funding, non-government students receive only $6607.

The fact that non-government school parents contribute 43 per cent of the cost of educating students in Catholic and independent schools, while governments contribute the remaining 57 per cent, means taxpayers are saving billions as governments do not have to meet the full costs of educating such students.

Contrary to what critics suggest, the current socio-economic status model of funding non-government schools is based on need. Wealthier non-government schools receive only 13.7 per cent of the cost of educating a government school student, what is known as the Average Government School Recurrent Costs.

Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that over the period from 2004-05 to 2008-09, government funding to state schools increased by 0.4 per cent a year in real terms, while non-government schools had a decline of 1.6 per cent a year.

Critics also argue that Australia’s education system is characterised by disadvantage and inequity.

Supposedly, the existence of non-government schools leads to government schools, in the words of the AEU, being residualised.

Ignored is research by Germany’s Ludger Woessmann and US-based Caroline Hoxby that the presence of diversity, choice and competition in education represents a “tide that can lift all boats".

Another furphy is that Catholic and independent schools outperform government schools only because they only enrol students from privileged homes.

However, researchers from the Australian Council for Educational Research conclude that non-government schools outperform state schools even after adjusting for student background.

State and federal governments argue that crucial to Australia surviving and prospering in a hostile global environment is an efficient, academically rigorous and internationally competitive education system.

The best way to achieve such goals, instead of undermining and weakening non-government schools, is to ensure their autonomy and that they are properly funded. To do otherwise is both short-sighted and an example of ideology winning over common sense.

The Australian Financial Review