Both sides of politics must take blame for funding

By Sue Simpson

Australia is a bizarre country when it comes to education funding.

In the United States and Europe, 90 per cent of students attend public schools. The US Constitution upholds the principle of the separation of church and state. This denies public funding to private schools.

Millionaire businessmen in California and Michigan, supporters of the Republican Party, have tried to get around this constitutional provision by proposing parents receive a voucher for use in a school of their choice. In the recent US elections voters resoundingly rejected voucher propositions. Instead they voted for propositions to increase the funding for public schools.

Colleagues in France and Germany are bemused by the public/private funding debates in Australia.

Australia is ranked 24th out of 28 Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries on education expenditure.

The Howard Government is failing to provide properly for our public universities, our TAFE colleges, pre-schools and public schools.

The controversial States Grants Bill which would see the 70 per cent of Australia's students in public schools receive only 32 per cent of Federal education funds over the next four years is the most extreme manifestation of the push to privatise education and reduce the cost to government.

Unfortunately the Federation's NSW State Budget submission reveals that the Carr Labor Government has cut spending on education and training in real terms in the last two State Budgets. All the blame cannot be laid at the Howard Government, although its policies have not helped.

Governments are encouraging or doing little to stop the proliferation of small private schools based on a range of religious and education philosophies.

Federal governments began the funding of private education and state governments have followed suit.

The Carr Labor Government was content to bash public education teachers quite mercilessly during the salaries dispute without any regard for the impact on public education. Only belatedly has it begun a welcome inquiry into the funding and accountability of private schools.

Neither major political party seems to want a proper debate on education funding.

The Federal Cabinet has only two members who attended public schools. The Prime Minister, who was one of them, did not, however, send his children to public schools.

The Cabinet is representative of such narrow educational experience that it is hardly surprising that parental sacrifice has been redefined to mean paying the fees for The Kings School.

The Coalition no longer consults with public sector teacher or parent organisations. They consulted behind closed doors with private school lobbyists around the proposed new federal funding increases. They entered into quiet deals with the Catholic education authorities.

When confronted with the needs of public education, the Howard Government either resorts to blaming the states for not properly funding "their" systems and/or argues that competition between public and private schools will lead to improved quality.

The ALP is not altogether rushing into the debate either. It is certainly more aware of the public education constituency. But it has had to be pushed into proposing any amendments in the Senate to the States Grants Bill. Their amendments went to the abolition of the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment mechanism, the cutting of increases in funding to the wealthiest private schools and the redistribution of these funds to students with disabilities in public and private schools.

The ALP holds the view that the supporters of public education will be satisfied with these amendments. It was a shock to the shadow education minister Michael Lee that his foreshadowing of these amendments did not satisfy the 750 principals, teachers and parents at the recent Mt Pritchard Public Education Forum in the ALP heartland of western Sydney.

The ALP's July Hobart Conference's response to the more visible lobbying of public education supporters was to call for increased funding to education. This is clearly to be supported but the issue of funding distribution and redistribution and the philosophies underpinning various education funding models must be confronted.

The Greens and the Democrats are attempting to do this. In the Senate debate, Greens Senator Bob Brown put forward an amendment that supported the maintenance of current funding arrangements in order to allow a year of review into education funding. This would have allowed a proper consideration of the notions of "choice", "need" and "quality".

The whole funding system and the relationship between Federal and State Governments has to be re-examined.

The relationship between choice and quality has to be examined.

In addition, there needs to be an examination of the relationship between values embodied in school systems and what it means to grow up being an Australian. The development of a cohesive society is not assisted by the proliferation of private schools that emphasise our differences and pander to parental fears.

While the political parties are reluctant to enter the debate, there are many in the community who are speaking out, forming coalitions and realising that "talking" must be joined by "doing".

The public education teacher unions around Australia will be working with the parent organisations to highlight the role of public education in Australian society and to highlight the importance of proper political support for our work on Thursday March 15 next year.

For further information

November 2000 contents