Education funding plan is unclear, but it won’t be as generous as Gonski

Since the Coalition government was elected in 2013, there has been uncertainty about the future of federal funding to schools. While Tony Abbott was prime minister and Christopher Pyne was education minister, there was little hope the so-called Gonski/Better Schools funding deal would be implemented in full.

The Abbott government committed to the first four years of the six-year deal devised by the former Rudd-Gillard Labor government but was reticent about the final two years. Federal budget papers did not offer any solace­―they showed school funding beyond the current quadrennium to grow only in line with Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases. The CPI marker was only a temporary place-holder in lieu of the development of a new funding model, but it did nothing to assuage the uncertainty.

When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister and Simon Birmingham took over as Education Minister in September this year, hope for the final two years of the Gonski/Better Schools deal was rekindled. Minister Birmingham’s confirmation this week that the federal government will not ‘give a Gonski’ draws a line under one aspect of the school funding debate, but leaves open the more important question of what it will do instead.

Only one thing is certain. A new federal funding model will not be as generous. The federal government’s budget deficit is still a big problem and is likely to be for the foreseeable future. Large increases in federal spending on education are not on the cards, especially given the chequered relationship between funding and school performance.

There is ample research showing that not all education spending can be considered an investment. This is not to say that school funding should not increase at all, but that any funding increases must be carefully targeted and used in ways that are most likely to be effective.

New evidence of this comes from The Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation in NSW, which recently published an evaluation of the impact of the former federal Labor government’s multi-billion dollar Smarter Schools National Partnerships over the four years from 2009 to 2012.

The evaluation compares NSW schools that received grant funding under the Low Socioeconomic Status National Partnerships (Low SES NP) with similar schools that did not receive the grants. Survey responses from principals and teachers were positive but, as the evaluation report states, the major question to be asked is “whether the reforms and the reported impact of the reforms according to schools have led to improved student outcomes; the main reason for the investment in and implementation of the Low SES NP”.

The analyses of the results are highly detailed and look at NAPLAN scores, School Certificate and Higher School Certificate results, and attendance and retention rates. The impact on NAPLAN scores was statistically significant (which is partly a function of the very large sample size), but in real educational terms was small. Over the four years of Low SES NP funding, NAPLAN scores in participating schools scores increased by a total of 5.04 points on average compared to non‐participating schools, after controlling for student characteristics and school location. To put this in context, Year 3 NAPLAN reading scores are out of 700 scaled score points. It is difficult to see this as a strong result given the amount of the funding involved.

Of course, this average belies variation in impacts―some schools achieved greater gains while others achieved less. The main finding of the report is this: Low SES NP funding had variable impacts on these important measures of school and student outcomes, showing that the way schools use extra resources is critical.

This is why any new federal funding agreement is likely to have an impact factor, with proven effective practices and programs, or accountability for results as conditions. Wanting to see the benefits of increased funding is understandable but getting the right balance of autonomy and accountability will be the next challenge.

Jennifer Buckingham is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.

Image source