The recent federal election which clogged up much of the media brought the nations and specifically parents and students attentions to the Gonski Review. It concerns school funding and recommends extra annual funding and a change in model for allocation of school funds. Consequently the government plans to utilise this “Gonski inspired model” for funding NSW public schools in the form of “equity loadings” (Tovey, 2013) in 2014. A recent article sheds light on how this will lead to some NSW public schools being disadvantaged whilst others that fit the criteria of “socioeconomic and indigenous disadvantage” (Tovey, 2013) are being advantaged by a scheme that supposedly promotes educational equity. I look to explore this issue of public school funding with the aid of scholarly work.
First I ponder what changes and impacts will result from this funding change to those schools that are set to benefit. Many schools will receive a much needed boost in funding including Western Sydney’s Cranebrook and Chester Hill High schools which will gain an extra $620 725 and $852 767 respectively. (Tovey, 2013) One school principal receiving additional funds has cited it as a “huge benefit” (Tovey, 2013) as the school was accustomed to operating with a “limited budget.” (Tovey, 2013) I suppose in this case the gain for this and similar schools would be affording one of the most valuable resources in education, being quality trained teachers. This reasoning is supported by Teese (2007) who says poorer schools “give up trained teachers through high turnover… they give up more advantageous staffing through the formal equity of class size.” (as cited in Kenway 2013, p.295)
Additionally since this funding scheme operates on the parameters of socioeconomic disadvantage, it utilises the logical method of basing monetary allocation on the “capacity of the parents enrolling their children in the school to contribute financially towards the school’s resource requirements.” (as cited in Kenway 2013, p.298) This is significant because it mitigates the great discrepancy that exists in background and SES in Australian education as the “top ICSEA value for 2010 [was] 1237 (extremely advantaged) and the bottom [was] 584 (extremely disadvantaged)” (Kenway, 2013, p.291) to promote success for students.
Moreover this is not only beneficial for students but for schools too with regard to competitiveness in the highly globalised field of education. This notion is supported by ideas demonstrated in the Gonksi Review (2011) “The most successful schooling systems internationally are those where students achieve to the best of their ability, without their background or the school they attend impacting on their outcomes” (as cited in Kenway, 2011, p.288)
Of equal importance is that this funding scheme is hindering some schools because “about 200 schools… will receive slightly less in the form of loadings in 2014.” (Tovey, 2013) These unfortunate schools, many that are in “low socioeconomic areas” (Tovey, 2013) include Mount Druitt Public School and Wiley Park Girls High school which both stand to lose the maximum capped amount of $50000. This is negative as it leads to “stratification of school education” (Kenway, 2013, p.296) which leads to a rise in low/middle fee private schooling. Consequently public schools are encouraged to emulate the “gold standards” (Kenway, 2013, p.296) of elite private schools to combat the middle class flight phenomenon because of the negative impact it imposes. The negative impacts I speak of include lowering performance standards of student cohorts, which is best explained by the Nous Group (2011), “The movement of a bright child from a low SES school to a higher SES school will undermine the quality of the remaining student body in the low SES school.” (as cited in Kenway, 2013, p.298)
On the other hand one optimistic view I can extrapolate is that such emulation is indicative of aspirations of schools to improve resources, accountability and performance. However, this is negated by the fact that emulation requires investment which is difficult to come by when budgets are decreased and private schools have “parents with deep pockets” (Kenway, 2013, p.296) and social economic advantage. Therefore students in schools that suffer budget decreases demonstrate the inadequacy of “hav[ing] access to the best possible education and a chance to realise their full potential can also be considered the moral imperative of schooling.” (as cited in Kenway, 2011, p.288)
I say it is useful to attempt to establish a “consistent set of principles and needs for the funding of all schools across Australia.” (Keating & Klatt, 2012, p.421) Though clearly there are winners and losers despite all campaigns of fairness as Julia Gillard had previously falsely stated that, “no school would lose a dollar.'' (Tovey 2013) It is unfair as some 200 schools will in a sense have monetary resources once accessible extracted from them while others are given the privilege of more resources. I consider this a privilege as not every school as discussed is entitled to it. Though I feel this is making inroads into a more effective and just education funding scheme.
References
Keating, J. Klatt, M. (2012). Australian concurrent federalism and its implications for the Gonski Review. Journal of Education Policy. Vol.28, No.4. pp.411-426
Kenway, J. (2013), Challenging inequality in Australian schools: Gonski and beyond. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Vol.34, No.2. pp.286-308
Tovey, J. (2013). 200 schools worse off in the new scheme. Sydney Morning Herald. Published on October 23rd 2013. Viewed on October 25th 2013. <http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/200-schools-worse-off-in-new-scheme-20131022-2vz9n.html>
No comments:
Post a Comment