Protecting public education

The role of Federation to protect, promote and lobby for public education has never been so critical, writes MAREE O'HALLORAN.

The re-election of the Howard Government means that its funding-linked requirements for schools are likely to be implemented despite being educationally unsound and dangerous. The current phoney and dishonest furore about reading in our schools is an indication of how interventionist Federal Education Minister Dr Brendan Nelson is likely to be this term. The Federal Government has allocated more than $30 billion for 2005-08 to schools funding. 73.7 per cent of the recurrent component of that funding goes to private schools. For schools to receive this federal funding they must comply with a range of Federal Government imposed conditions. For public schools, this means that the State Government must introduce these conditions or policies to receive the funding. The list began in March with school reporting requirements, school starting ages and requirements about bullying policies. In June the list was extended to include physical education, principals having the power to hire and fire staff and flying the Australian flag.

Minister Nelson argued vociferously during the federal election campaign that the Federal Government's share of funding to public schools amounted to only 12 per cent of the total (the balance from the State Government) and hence the Federal Government could not be held to account electorally for the chronic under-funding of public schools.

Federation argued that the Federal Government should be accountable for the choices it made. The first part of that choice is about the amount of funding it delivers. The second part, of course, is that while there have been absolute increases for both public and private schools, the proportionate increase to private schools has been much greater. Such increases have not been based on need or enrolment growth and therefore represent the Federal Government's values. It values private providers over the public system and allocates its funding accordingly.

The Federal Government refuses to accept electoral accountability for our public schools yet will, through this coming electoral cycle, introduce policy-making for which they ultimately have no responsibility. Even the Sydney Morning Herald editorial on June 24 labeled the pre-conditions on funding as "Federal meddling in state schools" saying: "If Mr Howard and the Federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, want to change the constitutional arrangement under which education is a state, not a federal matter, they should say so."

Premier Carr, of course, echoed this notion post the election when he called for a discussion about the constitutional arrangements for health and education. The Prime Minister's response was couched in the rhetoric of fear of teacher unions. On October 22 on radio station 3AW in response to a question about Mr Carr's proposition Mr Howard said:

"I think, I am very suspicious of the influence of teacher unions on State Government ministries and bureaucracies..... so I could say to Mr Carr very directly, and you're the first person who's actually asked me to comment on his attitude to education, that I am not in favour of a Commonwealth giving up its current role in relation to the funding of Catholic and independent schools."

Obviously the Prime Minister over-estimates our relationship with the State Government which has also chronically under-funded public education. However, he does not over-estimate the Federation's determination to continue campaigning for quality public schools open and available to all children in Australia.

The reason the Prime Minister does not wish to discuss constitutional re-alignments (or challenges for that matter) is that he and his government are equally determined to continue to advantage the already-advantaged in our community without electoral responsibility.

It is foolish to imagine the State Labor Government will be a bulwark against either the policy changes imposed by the pre-conditions placed on Federal funding or the continued greater proportional increases to private schools. The Carr Government's approach to these matters will be driven by a combination of seeking electoral advantage and accommodationist politics. It will, in fact, use the Federal funding pre-conditions as a cloak for its own desire to introduce deregulated staffing.

However, Carr's grip on government has loosened as substandard infrastructure exposes the weakness of media manipulation and dispute management as a substitute for long-term planning. Even before the latest rail crisis, a news poll conducted in October 2004 shows State Labor primary vote support down to 34 per cent compared with 44 per cent for the Coalition. On a two-party preferred basis, for the first time during Carr's premiership, the Coalition was also ahead 52-48 per cent.

In these circumstances the State Government, even if it were inclined to do so on a principle or policy basis, may decide to accommodate Nelson or bargain with him. Alternatively, such polling also indicates that a dispute with the Federation over staffing deregulation may be dangerous for the State Government if we convince the community the deregulation equals de-funding.

Federation's response to the Department's Excellence and Innovation consultation document is published in this edition). The fact that this consultation process is designed to produce certain outcomes is apparent from the consultation document itself. The sections entitled "What people have already told us" is ludicrous but telling. Which people, when and why?

Federation is also working to ensure that the Aboriginal Education Review produces a plan that is resourced and supported by teachers and the Aboriginal community. That review should not be a Trojan horse for deregulation.

Cutting schools with high Aboriginal populations adrift from the system is the ultimate in abrogation of Government responsibility. This is particularly so when it comes in the face of the 2000 OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey which showed that while some countries manage to ameliorate the effects of social background as educational achievement, Australia does not.

Like State Labor, Federal Labor faces important decisions of principle over the next few weeks. The debate over the Federal Government's funding bill Learning Together: Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity begins in Federal Parliament. Federal Labor has the opportunity to vote against that bill and/or amend it in the Upper House. Labor offered an alternative funding regime during the election program. As a matter of principle and to protect public education they should remain committed to that program.

Casual teachers

Maree O'Halloran is the President.

Futures project threatens public education

Reflections on public education and training

Developing a submission

For further information

November 2004 contents