There had been many articles and discussion on this topic, I have been trying to follow it closely. Following is the one article I read today and if SES funding model is largely determined by the socio-economic status (or SES) of the area code of its students as what stated. Then I agree with the author the new funding model is an unfair one. The article I am referencing from is Gonski 2.0 still leaves Australia’s school education with a class divide on SMH.
Some very wealthy high-fee schools will are going to do fairly well under the new system, and in the way which the Catholic system is allowed to distribute its government funds how it sees fit and will give more to its elite schools and less to its poor schools.
One problem is that the “needs” of schools under Gonski are largely determined by the socio-economic status (or SES) of the area code of its students. Moreover, in determining “needs”, the funding formula does not consider the capacity or willingness of parents to pay fees.
The result is that an elite school with many students from low and middle SES suburbs will get higher funding, even though the students from those suburbs come from very well-off families with a high capacity and willingness to pay fees.
By and large, elite schools draw students from families with high capacity and willingness to pay fees, and they draw them from low to middle SES suburbs as well as high SES suburbs. Indeed, you could imagine elite schools scooping up all the children of the wealthy and educationally keen in middle and poor SES suburbs. So they get credit for educating many students from low SES suburbs even though those children are from high SES families.
Last and not the least, I largely agree with the Author’s conclusion.
The overarching Gonski principle of needs-based funding is a good one, but the detail of how to assess needs is more difficult. That said, there is every reason to believe people closer to the action can do a better job. Just give them the money.
The feds are good and efficient at raising money, but not so good at the on-the-ground spending of it.
Share this post: