Self Regulation – How Corporations helped themselves.

Introduction

 

The era of self regulation was spurred on by a report in 1972 to the British Parliament by Lord Robens regarding workplace health and safety and its regulation. This ideology bled into all aspects of business regulation, but, hardly surprisingly, did not allow for the same degree of self regulation in workers’ cooperatives and trade unions.

Robens was a disaffected Labour politician whose paternalistic tendencies ensured his drift to Conservative politics through membership of corporate regulators such as the UK’s National Coal Board. This gave him access to corporate leaders which in turn coloured his attitudes toward them as he had been absorbed into their world.

Robens cannot be made the scapegoat for the broad acceptance of all self regulation but his recommendations were the catalyst for much of it.

Australia’s finance regulators have taken a laissez faire self regulatory stance and even when they have detected wrongdoings at the corporate level they have not taken legal or criminal prosecutions against corporations unlike that which has happened to trade unions, many prosecutions of which have been unsuccessful since they were baseless.

What is to be Done?

Banks and financial institutions must be held to account for their behaviour which has been criminal, dishonest and pernicious. Many people have had their life savings reduced to virtually nothing by the practices of banks, insurance companies and their respective superannuation funds.

Financial organisations have charged fees for no service, taken money for service from deceased estates and shown a total disregard for the welfare of their living clients. Too much self regulation and poor regulatory oversight has led to this problem. Because the banks and financial institutions have such overpowering financial clout they have been able to either hoodwink or persuade regulators to allow their continued behaviour and when they have been caught out the regulator, which is over-stacked with those from the corporate sector anyway, gives them a smack on the wrist rather than pursue them to the degree allowed in the legislation which created the regulator, even when the corporate entity has been an ongoing and recalcitrant repeat offender.

Hayne’s royal commission’s findings, so long as they are specific and create a system of appropriate sanctions and enforcement should be accepted by all political parties.

Offences should never be negotiated away through undertakings from the institutions because their actions over the years since the 1980’s have shown that they, the corporations, will continue to ignore the laws and regulations. No softly, softly approach is effective and should never be part of the regulation and sanctioning of aberrant behaviour.

Regulators should not be staffed with those from a corporate management  background but from those whose own behaviour and background is beyond reproach and have a social rather than corporate view of the policies which are being implemented.

 

Conclusion

Self regulation and the use of regulators too close to the organisations being regulated simply does not work in the interest of society. Banks and other financial institutions should be held to account for every single event proven to be illegal and/or immoral. Criminal sanctions and their implementation must be the first priority for those charged with ensuring Hayne’s report is accepted and his recommendation implemented in full.

Politicians must call banks and other financial institutions to account and in future they should never prop them up through financial crises, many of which are of their own making.

Sales commissions from banks and financial institutions must be made illegal and the level of corporate bonuses slashed or disallowed completely.

The effective self regulation we have seen in the financial sector in the past thirty years or more needs to be overturned and the regulators must be held accountable for their lack of regulatory oversight.

 

Update:

Unfortunately the Haynes commission report has made disappointingly few recommendations which are likely to affect the corrupt practices of the banks and the current Liberal National Party government is in no hurry to implement any recommendations made by the report.

Labor has indicated they are willing to implement all 76 recommendations and to ensure this they have already prepared draft legislation.

 

The self regulation regime does not seem to have been altered greatly in Hayne’s recommendations therefore we can look forward to yet more practices which affect more customers in the future. It is well past time for governments to ensure both proper prudential practice and implement sanctions against those financial institutions which are found wanting regarding their corporate behaviour.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Left Politics

The Need for a War?

Well it’s been a while since I wrote anything here but right now I am just a bit annoyed that the Australian Government is allowing its military to be used in another poorly thought out operation assisting the United States of America to provide weaponry for a loose group of so called freedom fighters in Iraq. Don’t these imbeciles ever bloody learn?

 

The USA have given weaponry to the insurgents (or freedom fighters or whatever the hell you are calling them this week) in many countries where unstable governments and unstable rebel movements have turned the very same weaponry on their own citizens causing greater grief and a larger death rate than would have occurred without their interference and then some have turned the weapons on the USA and its allies as the underground wars progress to the inevitable.

 

These countries are having civil wars and civil wars are a method used in all major countries and empires to make domestic decisions about who will govern when democracy doesn’t work or isn’t present. The USA had a civil war in the 19th Century, the English had one in the 17th century and many other countries, including Spain, in the 20th century

 

Civil wars have led to change and self determination in the eventual decision as to governing style. This self determination may not be to the liking of the world’s policemen, ie the USA, but the truth is their won system is no brilliant example of the successful democratic capitalist system with record debt and levels of poverty that were once considered third world problems.

 

There is no need for a war unless the right wing politician who is finding his poularity in single figures decides that that is a way of whipping up a sense of patriotism and fear in the community. We do have such a politician here in Australia at the moment so maybe it is all about a popularity campaign because it is sure a hell not necessary to give weapons to unstable regimes or their rebels because war is inevitable in those circumstances when another idiot uses his phallic symbol weapon to screw another system of government.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left Politics

Gonski report on A Review of (Australian) School Funding – Rough Copy

Final Report |
Review of Funding
for Schooling
December 2011

Review of Funding for Schooling
Final Report
December 2011
Expert panel
David Gonski AC, Chair
Ken Boston AO
Kathryn Greiner AO
Carmen Lawrence
Bill Scales AO
Peter Tannock AM

ISBN 978-0-642-78222-9 [PRINT]
ISBN 978-0-642-78223-6 [PDF]
ISBN 978-0-642-78224-3 [RTF]
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, the Department’s logo, any material protected
by a trade mark and where otherwise noted all material presented in this document is provided under
a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/)
licence. The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website
(accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode).
The document must be attributed as the Review of Funding for Schooling—Final Report.
Disclaimer:
The material contained in this report has been developed by the Review of Funding for Schooling.
The views and opinions expressed in the materials do not necessarily reflect the views of or have the
endorsement of the Australian Government or of any Minister, or indicate the Australian Government’s
commitment to a particular course of action. The Australian Government and the Review of the
Funding for Schooling accept no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents and
accept no liability in respect of the material contained in the report.
For enquiries please contact:
Review of Funding for Schooling
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
GPO Box 9880
CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601
The report can be accessed via the DEEWR website at:
http://www.schoolfunding.gov.au

Contents
Acronyms and abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………………… ix
Executive summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………… xiii
Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………………………. xxi
Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xxix
1 Schooling in Australia…………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Australia’s schooling system ………………………………………………………………………………. 3
1.1.1 Schools and student enrolments 3
1.1.2 Schooling sectors 4
1.1.3 Student profile within the schooling sectors 9
1.1.4 Choice within the schooling system 11
1.1.5 School resourcing 13
1.1.6 Conclusion 17
1.2 Schooling performance and outcomes ……………………………………………………………….. 19
1.2.1 High-performing schooling systems 19
1.2.2 Outcomes in international and national assessments 20
1.2.3 Year 12 or equivalent attainment 29
1.2.4 Developing confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens 33
1.2.5 Conclusion 34
2 Current funding arrangements ……………………………………………………………………………. 35
2.1 Roles of funding partners and systems ………………………………………………………………. 37
2.1.1 A partnership approach 37
2.1.2 Australian Government funding for schooling 38
2.1.3 State and territory government funding for schooling 42
2.1.4 Role of school systems 45
2.1.5 Non-systemic independent schools 47
2.1.6 Future opportunities 47
2.1.7 Conclusion 53
2.2 Average Government School Recurrent Costs and indexation ……………………………….. 55
2.2.1 Introduction of AGSRC 55
2.2.2 The calculation of the AGSRC amounts 56
2.2.3 The calculation of the AGSRC index 59
2.2.4 Issues with AGSRC 60
2.2.5 Possible alternatives to the current AGSRC 67
2.2.6 Conclusion 70
2.3 Socioeconomic Status funding model…………………………………………………………………. 71
2.3.1 How the SES model works 71
2.3.2 The concept of need 75
2.3.3 The measure of need 79
2.3.4 Funding Maintenance 82
2.3.5 Minimum public contribution 84
2.3.6 Conclusion 85
iii

2.4 Capital funding ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 87
2.4.1 State and territory government capital funding 87
2.4.2 Australian Government capital funding 90
2.4.3 Private income and support from the community 91
2.4.4 Levels and sources of capital investment in aggregate 92
2.4.5 Adequacy and quality of school infrastructure 96
2.4.6 The capital needs of existing schools 98
2.4.7 Future enrolment demands and new schools 100
2.4.8 Conclusion 101
3 Equity and disadvantage ……………………………………………………………………………………. 103
3.1 Equity in Australian schooling …………………………………………………………………………. 105
3.1.1 Defining equity 105
3.1.2 Equity in Australian schooling 106
3.1.3 Why equity is important 107
3.1.4 What we are seeking to achieve 108
3.1.5 The role of funding arrangements in achieving greater equity 109
3.1.6 Conclusion 110
3.2 The impact of disadvantage on outcomes………………………………………………………….. 111
3.2.1 Low socioeconomic status 113
3.2.2 Indigeneity 115
3.2.3 English language proficiency 117
3.2.4 Students with disability 119
3.2.5 Remoteness 121
3.2.6 The compound effect of disadvantage 123
3.2.7 Concentrations of disadvantage 124
3.2.8 Conclusion 126
3.3 Funding for educational disadvantage………………………………………………………………. 129
3.3.1 The emergence of funding for disadvantage 129
3.3.2 Current approaches to funding disadvantage 130
3.3.3 Current overall investment 132
3.3.4 Determining the effectiveness of funding 135
3.3.5 A future funding approach 135
3.3.6 Conclusion 137
3.4 Improving outcomes for disadvantaged students……………………………………………….. 139
3.4.1 National Partnership arrangements 139
3.4.2 Strategies that improve outcomes 140
3.4.3 Conclusion 145
4 Funding architecture ………………………………………………………………………………………… 147
4.1 Funding principles …………………………………………………………………………………………. 149
4.2 A resource standard for Australian schools ………………………………………………………. 153
4.2.1 A schooling resource standard 153
4.2.2 Rationale for a resource standard 154
4.2.3 Linking funding to outcomes 156
4.2.4 Scope of costs 160
4.2.5 State adjustments 162
4.2.6 Application 164
iv

4.2.7 Per student amounts – indicative estimates 165
4.2.8 Loadings 166
4.2.9 Indexation and review 170
4.3 A new funding framework……………………………………………………………………………….. 173
4.3.1 General recurrent funding 173
4.3.2 Students with disability 183
4.3.3 Capital and infrastructure 185
4.4 Governance and regulation……………………………………………………………………………… 191
4.4.1 National Schools Resourcing Body 191
4.4.2 Roles and responsibilities of the Australian Government and the states and territories 193
4.4.3 Roles and expectations of non-government systems and independent schools 195
4.4.4 Legislation 195
4.4.5 Strengthening regulation and accountability 196
4.5 Philanthropy …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 199
4.5.1 Philanthropy in Australia 199
4.5.2 Philanthropy in schooling 199
4.5.3 Benefits of philanthropy in schooling 200
4.5.4 Barriers to philanthropic giving to schools 201
4.5.5 Current approaches to philanthropic giving to schools 203
4.5.6 Potential approaches to encourage philanthropic giving 204
4.5.7 Conclusion 206
4.6 Modelled results of the new schooling resource standard…………………………………… 207
4.7 Justification for additional investment in Australian schooling ……………………………. 211
5 Building momentum for change …………………………………………………………………………. 213
5.1 Building momentum for change ………………………………………………………………………. 215
5.1.1 The foundations for change 215
5.1.2 National purpose and goals for Australian schooling 217
5.1.3 A great teaching profession 217
5.1.4 Empowered schools and leadership 219
5.1.5 Developing and sustaining innovation 219
5.1.6 Engaged parents 220
5.1.7 Community involvement 220
5.1.8 Quality assurance 221
5.1.9 Conclusion 221
Appendix A – Terms of reference for the Review of Funding for Schooling ……………………. 225
Appendix B – Review process and consultation …………………………………………………………. 227
Appendix C – Organisations consulted during the 2010 listening tour ………………………….. 231
Appendix D – Emerging Issues Paper submissions ……………………………………………………. 233
Appendix E – Panel school visits program ………………………………………………………………… 237
Appendix F – Paper on Commissioned Research submissions…………………………………….. 241
Appendix G – Public submissions…………………………………………………………………………….. 245
Appendix H – Schooling resource standard data and methodology ………………………………. 255
References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 263
Index…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 273
v

Tables
Table 1: Fast facts and figures – schooling in Australia, 2010 4
Table 2: Affiliations of independent schools, 2010 8
Table 3: Income and expenditure on schooling, 2009 14
Table 4: Australia’s mean scores in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy in PISA,
2000 and 2009 20
Table 5: Comparative achievement of Year 9 students in reading in NAPLAN,
by state and territory, 2010 27
Table 6: Student characteristics by state, territory and sector in Australia, 2010 28
Table 7: National Partnerships for schooling 40
Table 8: State and territory recurrent and targeted funding for government schools 43
Table 9: State and territory recurrent funding for non-government schools,
including funding for disadvantaged students 44
Table 10: Full-time equivalent enrolments in systemic schools, 2010 45
Table 11: Independent schools systems, 2010 46
Table 12: Full-time equivalent enrolments in non-systemic schools, 2010 47
Table 13: Recurrent expense items in the MCEECDYA schools finance data collection 56
Table 14: Some differences between cash and accrual accounting 57
Table 15: State and territory capital funding for non-government schools 89
Table 16: National Partnerships relating to school infrastructure 91
Table 17: Level of capital expenditure by funding source, 2009 92
Table 18: Examples of possible approaches to defining the adequacy or
quality of school infrastructure 97
Table 19: Schooling resource standard per student amounts – indicative estimates 2009
(excluding loadings) 165
Table 20: Schooling resource standard loadings – indicative ranges 169
Table 21: Schooling resource standard per student amounts – indicative estimates 2009
(excluding loadings) 208
Table 22: Schooling resource standard loadings – indicative ranges 208
Table 23: Number of submissions received by the review panel 229
Table 24: Schools visited by panel members in New South Wales 237
Table 25: Schools visited by panel members in Victoria 238
Table 26: Schools visited by panel members in Queensland 238
Table 27: Schools visited by panel members in South Australia 238
Table 28: Schools visited by panel members in Western Australia 238
Table 29: Schools visited by panel members in Tasmania 239
Table 30: Schools visited by panel members in the Northern Territory 239
Table 31: Schools visited by panel members in the Australian Capital Territory 239
vi

Figures
Figure 1:Distribution of students by socio-educational advantage quarter, by sector, 2010 9
Figure 2: Proportion of students by disadvantage group, by sector, 2010 10
Figure 3: Distribution of enrolled students by school type, 2009 12
Figure 4:Expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education as a
percentage of GDP, 2008 13
Figure 5:Average net recurrent income per student by source of income and sector, 2009 15
Figure 6: Total capital expenditure by source of funding and sector, 2009 16
Figure 7:Private income as a proportion of total gross recurrent income,
by sector, 2009 17
Figure 8:Percentage of Australian students by highest level of reading literacy
proficiency in PISA, 2000 and 2009 21
Figure 9:PISA reading literacy mean scores for the top ten ranking countries and
performance inequality, 2009 23
Figure 10:Percentage of Year 9 students above and below the national minimum
standard for the five NAPLAN domains, 2008 and 2010 25
Figure 11:Mean scores in national and international assessments by sector, 2009 and 2010 26
Figure 12: Median weekly earnings by highest level of education, 2009 30
Figure 13: Progress towards COAG target for Year 12 or equivalent attainment rate 31
Figure 14: Proportion of 20–24 year-olds who had attained Year 12 or equivalent, 2010 32
Figure 15: National Schools SPP funding by state and territory, 2009 to 2013 40
Figure 16:Australian Government and state government net recurrent funding as a
proportion of all government recurrent funding, by sector, 2009 50
Figure 17:Australian Government and state government contributions to net recurrent
income per student in government schools, 2009 50
Figure 18:Australian Government and state government contributions to net recurrent
income per student in non-government schools, 2009 51
Figure 19: Derivation of AGSRC amounts 2011 58
Figure 20: Derivation of the AGSRC index 2011 59
Figure 21: Components of change in AGSRC from 2001 to 2011 by level of schooling 60
Figure 22:Components of change in teacher and administrative staff expenses
per student from 1999–2000 to 2009–10 61
Figure 23:Recurrent expenditure per student in Catholic schools as a percentage of
government schools, selected years from 1974 to 2008 63
Figure 24:Cumulative change in AGSRC compared to Consumer Price Index and
Labour Price Index, 1999–2000 to 2009–10 65
Figure 25: Funding levels under the SES model 72
Figure 26: Calculation of school SES scores 73
Figure 27:Estimated number of non-government schools by funding status, 2009 to 2012 74
vii

Figure 28: Two dimensions of need in funding for schooling 75
Figure 29: Average fees per student for SES funded schools, 2009 77
Figure 30:Average fees per student and student numbers by Index of Community
Socio-Educational Advantage and sector, 2009 77
Figure 31: Funding rates by school SES score and funding status, 2010 83
Figure 32:Estimated value of Funding Maintenance to schools by school SES score, 2010 84
Figure 33: Average capital investment per student (in 2008 dollars) 93
Figure 34:Average capital investment per student in government schools,
by jurisdiction (in 2008 dollars) 94
Figure 35: Proportion of capital expenditure by funding source, 2009 95
Figure 36: Social gradients in PISA reading literacy by country, 2009 107
Figure 37: Percentage of underperforming students in PISA reading literacy, 2009 109
Figure 38:Proportion of children developmentally vulnerable on two or more AEDI domains 112
Figure 39: Achievement in NAPLAN 2010 reading by parental education 114
Figure 40:Proficiency levels in PISA reading, mathematical and science literacy in
Australia by ESCS, 2009 115
Figure 41:Indigenous and non-Indigenous student NAPLAN performance,
Years 3, 5, 7 and 9, 2010 116
Figure 42:Proportion of the 20 to 24 year-old population with Year 12 or equivalent attainment, by
Indigenous status, by state and territory, 2008 117
Figure 43: Impact of LBOTE-related measures on 2009 NAPLAN results 119
Figure 44: 2010 Year 9 NAPLAN reading scores by location 122
Figure 45: Year 3 students by SES quarter and school SES quarter 125
Figure 46:Average performance of Year 3 Indigenous students by concentration of Indigenous
students in schools 126
Figure 47: Aggregate government funding for disadvantaged students, 2009–10 133
Figure 48:Average funding per student for students with disability in government schools,
by state and territory, 2009–10 133
Figure 49:Average funding per student for remaining equity groups in government
schools, by state and territory, 2009–10 134
Figure 50: Outline of the schooling resource standard 154
Figure 51: NAPLAN assessment scale 158
Figure 52: Composition of reference group schools 159
Figure 53:Net recurrent income per government sector student by state and sector, 2009 162
Figure 54: Proposed model for funding the schooling resource standard 174
Figure 55: Anticipated private contribution in non-government schools 178
Figure 56: Schools by location and size, 2009 258
Figure 57: NAPLAN school reading scores by concentrated disadvantage, 2010 259
Figure 58: Schools by concentrated disadvantage, 2009 260
viii

Acronyms and abbreviations
ABS
ACARA
AEDI
AGSRC
AIME
AQF
BERIT
BER CAM
BGA
CD
COAG
COPE
CPI
DEEWR
DGR
DSE
ERI
ESCS
ESL
GDP
GST
ICSEA
ICT
LBOTE
LPI
MCEECDYA
MCEETYA
Melbourne Declaration
NAPLAN
NRIPS
OECD
P&C associations
PALL
PISA
SEA
SES
SPP
TAFE
TIMSS
VET
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority
Australian Early Development Index
Average Government School Recurrent Costs
Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience
Australian Qualifications Framework
Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce
Building the Education Revolution Cost Analysis Model
Block Grant Authority
Collection District
Council of Australian Governments
Commonwealth own-purpose expense
Consumer Price Index
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
deductible gift recipient
Disability Standards for Education
Education Resources Index
(index of) economic, social and cultural status
English as a second language
gross domestic product
goods and services tax
Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage
information and communications technology
language background other than English
Labour Price Index
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and
Youth Affairs
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians
National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy
net recurrent income per student
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
parents and citizens’ associations
Principals as Literacy Leaders
Programme for International Student Assessment
socio-educational advantage
socioeconomic status
Specific Purpose Payment
Technical and Further Education
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
vocational education and training
ix

i Revew of
Funding for Schooling
The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP
Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Minister
On 15 April 2010, the then Federal Minister for Education, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, initiated a review of
funding arrangements for schooling to develop a funding system which is transparent, fair, financially
sustainable and effective in promoting excellent educational outcomes for all Australian students.
The review’s terms of reference require the review to report to the Federal Minister with responsibility
for school education. Accordingly, on behalf of the panel leading the review, I am pleased to present
our final report, Review of Funding for Schooling: Final Report.
The review process has spanned many months and attracted immense public interest. More than
7000 written submissions have been provided to the review, and the panel has met with hundreds of
professionals and stakeholders in the school education community.
We have been heartened by the strong and passionate interest in school education that has been
evident throughout the review process. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who
contributed to the review, particularly the stakeholders who were so generous with their time in
meeting with the panel.
I also express my gratitude to my colleagues on the panel; Ken Boston AO, Kathryn Greiner AO,
Carmen Lawrence, Bill Scales AO, and Peter Tannock AM. Terrey Arcus AM also provided invaluable
support to the panel and I thank him.
From commencement the panel was blessed with an excellent secretariat and we are most grateful.
I thank Madonna Morton who initially led and established the team. Louise Hanlon, who has led the
secretariat from April 2011 to completion of the report, should be congratulated on her outstanding
leadership.
The panel has been conscious of delivering a comprehensive response to our terms of reference that
would allow you and the Australian Government time to consider the changes you wish to make for
funding arrangements for schooling in Australia for the period beyond 2013.
The panel is strongly of the view that the proposed funding arrangements outlined in the report are
required to drive improved outcomes for all Australian students, and to ensure that differences in
educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.
Yours sincerely
David Gonski AC
Chair
Location C16MT4, GPO Box 9880, Canberra ACT 2601 | e: schoolsfundingreview@deewr.gov.au | p: 1800 677 027 [select 1 then option 4]

xii

Executive summary
High-quality schooling fosters the development of creative, informed and resilient citizens who are
able to participate fully in a dynamic and globalised world. It also leads to many benefits for individuals
and society, including higher levels of employment and earnings, and better health, longevity,
tolerance and social cohesion.
Overall, Australia has a relatively high-performing schooling system when measured against
international benchmarks, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment. However,
over the last decade the performance of Australian students has declined at all levels of achievement,
notably at the top end. This decline has contributed to the fall in Australia’s international position.
In 2000, only one country outperformed Australia in reading and scientific literacy and only two
outperformed Australia in mathematical literacy. By 2009, six countries outperformed Australia in
reading and scientific literacy and 12 outperformed Australia in mathematical literacy.
In addition to declining performance across the board, Australia has a significant gap between its
highest and lowest performing students. This performance gap is far greater in Australia than in many
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, particularly those with
high-performing schooling systems. A concerning proportion of Australia’s lowest performing
students are not meeting minimum standards of achievement. There is also an unacceptable link
between low levels of achievement and educational disadvantage, particularly among students from
low socioeconomic and Indigenous backgrounds.
Funding for schooling must not be seen simply as a financial matter. Rather, it is about investing to
strengthen and secure Australia’s future. Investment and high expectations must go hand in hand.
Every school must be appropriately resourced to support every child and every teacher must expect
the most from every child.
The task of the panel
The review was established to develop a funding system for Australian schooling which is transparent,
fair, financially sustainable and effective in promoting excellent outcomes for all Australian students.
The panel acknowledges that schools contribute to a much broader range of outcomes for students
than those currently measured by governments and which receive the greatest attention in this report.
Likewise, parents choose to send their children to a particular school on the basis of more than
academic results. For the purpose of this report and to adhere to the terms of reference, the panel
has focused on funding for schooling and its impact on outcomes as they are currently measured by
governments both nationally and internationally.
The panel considered the funding needs of students from all schools across the government, Catholic
and independent school sectors. It considered the current arrangements for providing Australian
Government and state and territory funding to schools, as well as other sources of school income.
In addition, the panel reflected on the forms of accountability employed by the schooling sectors, as
well as the data required to monitor and assess standards of delivery and educational outcomes.
The task of understanding and responding to the challenges of the current funding arrangements for
schooling is complex. There are significant differences in the way Australian schools are organised
across sectors, as well as differences in the demographics of the student bodies and the challenges
faced by sectors and states.
xiii

There are also differences in the way schools are funded by the Australian Government and state
and territory governments across sectors and states, including different approaches to supporting
educationally disadvantaged students. Further, there is not a consistent approach across states and
territories to collecting and reporting data on certain student cohorts, nor on the effectiveness of
funding in meeting the educational needs of students.
The panel has concluded that Australia must aspire to have a schooling system that is among the best
in the world for its quality and equity, and must prioritise support for its lowest performing students.
Every child should have access to the best possible education, regardless of where they live, the
income of their family or the school they attend. Further, no student in Australia should leave school
without the basic skills and competencies needed to participate in the workforce and lead successful
and productive lives. The system as a whole must work to meet the needs of all Australian children,
now and in the future.
The panel believes that the key to achieving this vision is to strengthen the current national schooling
reforms through funding reform.
The foundations for change
Over recent years, a number of historic steps have been made to improve Australia’s schooling system.
In December 2008, the Australian Government and state and territory Education Ministers released
the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Melbourne Declaration), setting
out the national purpose and policy for Australian schooling for the next 10 years. The goals focus on
promoting equity and excellence in schooling, and on young Australians becoming successful learners,
confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens. Central to realising these goals is
providing all students with access to high-quality schooling.
National priorities and reforms have also been agreed by all governments through the Council of
Australian Governments to progress the national goals. Key policy directions under the National
Education Agreement include improving teacher quality and school leadership, greater accountability
and better directed resources, integrated strategies for low socioeconomic school communities,
and improving the outcomes of Indigenous students. National curriculum is being developed to set
clear achievement standards for all students. The My School website is providing public access to
information about school performance and resources.
While these reforms lay a good foundation for addressing Australia’s schooling challenges, they need
to be supported by an effective funding framework.
Australia needs effective arrangements for funding schools across all levels of government—
arrangements that ensure resources are being provided where they are needed. The funding
arrangements should be aimed at achieving an internationally competitive high standard of schooling,
where outcomes are not determined by socioeconomic status or the type of school the child attends,
and where the Australian Government and state and territory governments work in partnership to
meet the schooling needs of all Australian children.
Issues with the current funding arrangements
When considered holistically, the current funding arrangements for schooling are unnecessarily
complex, lack coherence and transparency, and involve a duplication of funding effort in some areas.
There is an imbalance between the funding responsibilities of the Australian Government and state
and territory governments across the schooling sectors.
xiv

There is a distinct lack of coordination in the way governments fund schooling, particularly in relation
to directing funding to schools based on student need across jurisdictions and sectors.
There is also a significant overlap in the funding priorities of the Australian Government and state
and territory governments. The overlap leads to duplication and inefficiency, and makes it difficult for
governments and policy makers to decide how best to fund the needs of school systems and schools.
It is not always clear which level of government is providing funding, nor what role the
Australian Government and state and territory governments should play in funding particular
educational priorities.
Not all states and territories have the same capacity to fund their school systems adequately. It
would appear that some, due to current economic realities or the need to support a larger share of
educationally disadvantaged students, struggle to provide the resources needed in schools.
Historically, the states and territories are the primary funders of government schools and the
Australian Government is the primary funder of non-government schools. These roles are divisive
within significant parts of the Australian community because they can give the false and misleading
impression of a preference by the Australian Government for non-government schools over
government schools, and a corresponding false and misleading view of neglect by state and territory
governments of the funding needs of non-government schools.
Australian Government funding arrangements for government schools, and for non-government
schools under the socioeconomic status funding model, are based on an outdated and opaque average
cost measure, the Average Government School Recurrent Costs. As such, the funding that is provided
to schools does not directly relate to schooling outcomes, and does not take into account the full costs
of educating students to an internationally accepted high standard of schooling.
Indexation arrangements are also unclear and vary between states and territories. The indexation of
Australian Government funding for non-government schools is related only to the annual increase
in the costs of schooling within the government sector, and is not related to cost increases in all
schooling sectors.
Funding for school capital and infrastructure is uncoordinated and lacks planning. Many schools,
particularly those in the government sector, are suffering from a lack of capital investment. This
impacts on the educational opportunities afforded to the students, as well as the attitudes and morale
of students, parents and the broader community.
To address these longstanding deficiencies with Australia’s funding arrangements for schooling,
the panel has made a number of significant and far-reaching recommendations for a future funding
system for Australian schools.
A new funding approach
The panel believes that a significant increase in funding is required across all schooling sectors, with
the largest part of this increase flowing to the government sector due to the significant numbers and
greater concentration of disadvantaged students attending government schools.
Funding arrangements for government and non-government schools must be better balanced to
reflect the joint contribution of both levels of government in funding all schooling sectors. They must
also be better coordinated so that funding effort can be maximised, particularly effort to improve the
educational outcomes of disadvantaged students.
xv

A new schooling resource standard
The panel recommends that all recurrent funding for schooling, whether it is provided by
the Australian Government or state and territory governments, be based on a new schooling
resource standard.
The schooling resource standard would:
• form the basis for general recurrent funding for all students in all schooling sectors
• consist of separate per student amounts for primary school students and secondary school
students
• provide loadings for the additional costs of meeting certain educational needs. These loadings
would take into account socioeconomic background, disability, English language proficiency, the
particular needs of Indigenous students, school size, and school location
• be based on actual resources used by schools already achieving high educational outcomes for
their students over a sustained period of time
• recognise that schools with similar student populations require the same level of resources
regardless of whether they are located in the government, Catholic or independent school sectors
• be periodically reviewed every four years so that it continues to reflect community aspirations and,
in between reviews, be indexed using a simple measure that is based on the actual increase in
costs in schools already achieving the relevant high educational outcomes over a sustained period
of time.
Further collaborative work involving all governments and sectors will be required to settle the levels of
the schooling resource standard per student amounts and loadings in the lead-up to implementation
from 2014. Ongoing responsibility for indexing and reviewing the resource standard should be
entrusted to an independent and expert National Schools Resourcing Body.
A fairer funding framework
The per student amount plus loadings would represent the total resources required by a school to
provide its students with the opportunity to achieve high educational outcomes for their students over
a sustained period of time. It would be funded from public funding from all levels of government, as
well as any private sources.
In recognition of the role of the government sector as a universal provider of schooling, all government
schools would be fully publicly funded to the level of the schooling resource standard plus any
applicable loadings.
In the non-government sector, public funding would generally be provided based on the anticipated
level of a school’s private contribution. The private contribution anticipated for a school would be
initially based on the socioeconomic status (SES) score of the school, reflecting the capacity of the
school community to support the school. Work would commence as a priority to develop, trial and
implement a more precise measure of capacity to contribute.
A minimum private contribution of at least 10 per cent of the schooling resource standard per student
amounts would be anticipated for non-government schools in the lowest quarter of school SES scores,
that is, with a score up to between 90 and 95. A maximum private contribution of up to between 75 and
80 per cent would be anticipated for schools with an SES score above around 130.
Some non-government schools would be fully publicly funded where they serve students or
communities with very high levels of need, for example, special schools, majority Indigenous schools,
and remote ‘sole provider’ schools.
xvi

On the basis of the Australian Government’s announcement that under a new funding arrangement no
school would lose a dollar per student as a result of this review, the panel has recommended that a
minimum public contribution per student for every non-government school be applied, set at between
20 and 25 per cent of the schooling resource standard excluding loadings. Detailed transitional
arrangements will need to be developed once schooling resource standard per student amounts and
loadings are settled.
A more balanced alignment of public funding responsibilities for government and non-government
schools should be negotiated between the Australian Government and the states and territories as
part of the transition to a new funding model. The Australian Government should assume a greater
role in the funding of government schools. Similarly, the states and territories should assume a
greater role in relation to non-government schools within a framework that provides them with the
resources to assume this greater role and gives all schools certainty and stability around future
funding levels.
The additional costs of supporting students with disability should be included as a loading in the
schooling resource standard once nationally consistent data on student numbers and adjustment
levels becomes available. This loading for students with disability would be fully publicly funded as an
entitlement in all schools regardless of sector.
Public funding for school systems would be provided to system authorities for distribution to
their schools. There would be an expectation that systems would be publicly accountable for their
decisions on the redistribution of that funding. Non-systemic schools would receive funding directly
from governments.
There is also potential for all Australian schools, especially in the government sector, to connect
with philanthropic partners to deliver time, money and expertise to schools. Nationally, better
arrangements are required for schools and donors to make these connections.
Better coordination of infrastructure
To complement the recurrent schooling resource standard, there is a need for an expanded stream
of Australian Government capital funding for both the government and non-government sectors.
For existing schools, Australian Government capital funding should be made available to
schools through grants for specific major works and infrastructure projects. Grants should
be selected according to guidelines and managed by relevant bodies in the government and
non-government sectors.
In relation to new schools and major school expansions, there is a need for a more coordinated
approach to planning. The panel recommends this should be carried out by new, cross-sectoral School
Planning Authorities in each jurisdiction. Access to Australian Government capital funding through a
School Growth Fund would be conditional on approval of the project by the relevant School Planning
Authority. The funding amount provided under this fund would need to be developed following an
assessment of demand and need in each state and territory.
There is also a need for greater transparency and accountability for the condition of school
infrastructure in Australia. This will be facilitated by the operation of the School Planning Authorities
in each jurisdiction, as well as work by the National Schools Resourcing Body to develop expected
standards to which buildings must be maintained and built, and greater monitoring and reporting on
the condition of school infrastructure in all sectors and states.
xvii

National Schools Resourcing Body
The panel’s framework for funding schooling requires a more sophisticated approach to governance
of Australia’s schooling system. In particular, the effectiveness of the schooling resource standard
rests on confidence in the independence and transparency of the process for setting the per student
amounts and loadings.
The panel recommends the establishment of an independent National Schools Resourcing Body that
will form the core of the governance necessary to ensure that funding for schooling is provided in a
way that maximises its educational impact.
The National Schools Resourcing Body will be responsible for the ongoing development and
maintenance of the schooling resource standard and loadings to ensure that they remain
contemporary and aspirational. The panel considers that it should have the necessary expertise,
independence and budget to support its roles. The body would also be required to commission and
undertake research and analysis that will further current thinking on how to measure effectiveness
in schooling. This will necessitate significant improvements in the collection of nationally comparable
data. It will ensure that the funding framework continues to be developed and enhanced through solid
evidence and intellectual rigour.
Stronger governance and accountability
The panel recognises that its reforms will require the support and commitment of all Australian
governments. The existing framework of intergovernmental agreements on schooling should be
revised to ensure that it meets the requirements of the new funding framework and reflects the
renegotiated roles and responsibilities of funding partners. This should also include the development
of state and territory bilateral agreements with the Commonwealth that reflect specific funding
and educational requirements in jurisdictions. Funding agreements with non-government system
authorities and independent schools should likewise be amended to reflect changed roles and
conditions, as well as provide greater funding certainty through 12-year funding agreements.
School systems play a valuable role in funding and supporting schools and should continue to play a
significant role in the detailed allocation of block funding from governments to their member schools.
However, there should be an expectation that systems will be publicly accountable for their decisions
on the distribution of funding.
The required additional investment
On the basis of the determinations made by the panel for the purposes of the modelling, the results
indicated that if these arrangements had been implemented in full during 2009, the additional cost to
governments would have been about $5 billion or around 15 per cent of all governments’ recurrent
funding for schooling that year.
Based on its current proportion of total funding, the Australian Government would bear around
30 per cent of the increase. How the additional cost is actually borne will need to be discussed and
negotiated between all governments.
Transition
The panel acknowledges that governments will need to work collaboratively to finalise the necessary
details, funding responsibilities and transition arrangements.
xviii

Conclusion
The panel accepts that resources alone will not be sufficient to fully address Australia’s schooling
challenges and achieve a high-quality, internationally respected schooling system. The new funding
arrangements must be accompanied by continued and renewed efforts to strengthen and reform
Australia’s schooling system.
Australia’s schools, government and non-government, should be staffed with the very best principals
and teachers, those who feel empowered to lead and drive change, and create opportunities for
students to learn in new ways to meet their individual needs. Classrooms should support innovative
approaches to learning, not only through the curriculum, technologies and infrastructure, but
also through the culture of the school. Principals and teachers should encourage a culture of high
expectations, continuous learning, and independence and responsibility for all students. They should
also forge connections with parents and the community, as key partners in children’s learning and
attitudes to school.
For these practices to be championed in every school, the Australian Government and state and
territory governments must continue to work together, in consultation with the non-government
school sector, to progress the current school reform agenda.
Australia and its children and young people, now and in the future, deserve nothing less.
xix

xx

Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the nongovernment
sector, should develop and implement a schooling resource standard as the basis for
general recurrent funding of government and non-government schools. The schooling resource
standard should:
• reflect the agreed outcomes and goals of schooling and enable them to be achieved and improved
over time
• be transparent, defensible and equitable and be capable of application across all sectors and
systems
• include amounts per primary and secondary student, with adjustments for students and schools
facing certain additional costs
• complement and help drive broader schooling reform to improve Australia’s overall performance
and reduce inequity of outcomes.
Recommendation 2
In a new model for funding non-government schools, the assessment of a non-government school’s
need for public funding should be based on the anticipated capacity of the parents enrolling their
children in the school to contribute financially towards the school’s resource requirements.
Recommendation 3
For the purposes of allocating public funding for non-government schools, the Australian Government
should continue to use the existing area-based socioeconomic status (SES) measure, and as soon as
possible develop, trial and implement a new measure for estimating the quantum of the anticipated
private contribution for non-government schools in consultation with the states, territories and
non-government sectors.
Recommendation 4
From 2014, non-government schools should be funded by the Australian Government on the basis of a
common measure of need that is applied fairly and consistently to all.
Recommendation 5
The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the non-government
school sector, should make reducing educational disadvantage a high priority in a new funding model.
This will require resourcing to be targeted towards supporting the most disadvantaged students
and should:
• capture variation in performance within categories of disadvantaged students
• significantly increase support to schools that enrol students who experience multiple factors of
disadvantage
• significantly increase support to schools that have high concentrations of disadvantaged students.
xxi

Recommendation 6
In contributing towards the additional costs of educating disadvantaged students, governments should
move away from funding targeted programs and focus on ensuring that the states and territories
and the non-government sector are publicly accountable for the educational outcomes achieved by
students from all sources of funding.
Governments should continue to contribute towards the costs of educating disadvantaged students by
providing recurrent funding that provides additional assistance for:
• students where the need for assistance is ongoing and reasonably predictable
• schools with the highest concentrations of students who need support to achieve improved
educational outcomes.
Recommendation 7
Future funding arrangements and governance structures for schooling should aim for sustained
improvements in the educational outcomes of disadvantaged students, as part of achieving better
outcomes for all students. To achieve this, additional funding provided to schools to overcome
disadvantage should be invested in strategies that:
• improve practices for teaching disadvantaged students
• strengthen leadership to drive school improvement
• focus on early intervention for students at risk of underperformance
• are flexibly implemented to address local needs
• encourage parent and community engagement
• are based on robust data and evidence that can inform decisions about educational effectiveness
and student outcome.
Recommendation 8
The Australian Government, in collaboration with the states and territories and in consultation with the
non-government sector, should develop and implement a new funding model for schools based on the
principles of:
• fair, logical and practical allocation of public funds
• funding in response to need
• funding from all sources must be sufficient
• support for a diverse range of schools
• driving broader school reform
• partnership between governments and across sectors
• transparency and clarity
• value for money and accountability.
Recommendation 9
The Australian Government, in collaboration with the states and territories and in consultation with the
non-government sector, should:
• initially base the per student component of the resource standard on an outcomes benchmark that
at least 80 per cent of students in reference schools are achieving above the national minimum
xxii

standard, for their year level, in both reading and numeracy, across each of the three most recent
years of NAPLAN results
• conduct additional research to validate the composition of the reference group used for setting the
per student amounts to apply from 2014 onwards
• broaden over time the scope of student outcomes covered in the benchmark to include other
nationally consistent, whole-of-cohort measures
• review regularly the scope, methodology and data required to set the student outcomes benchmark.
Recommendation 10
The schooling resource standard should:
• be a recurrent resource standard, which includes a provision for general maintenance and minor
acquisitions below an established capitalisation threshold but does not include capital costs
• include the full costs of delivering schooling services regardless of whether these are delivered in
an independent school or a systemic school
• exclude adjunct service costs.
Recommendation 11
The Australian Government should negotiate with state and territory governments and consult with
the non-government sector with a view to implementing a national schooling resource standard
that allows flexibility in how it is applied across jurisdictions. This process should be guided by the
following principles:
• the states and territories should have an incentive to take part in new funding arrangements
• the states and territories and the Australian Government should share any efficiencies in the
provision of education on the basis of the schooling resource standard
• no state or territory should be disadvantaged in relation to Commonwealth Grants Commission or
GST allocations as a result of their cooperation with the Australian Government in implementing
the schooling resource standard.
Recommendation 12
The schooling resource standard should be used by the Australian Government as the basis for
determining its total recurrent funding for government and non-government systems and schools and
for the allocation of that funding across systems and schools. It should also be adopted by the states
and territories to guide their total recurrent funding for government and non-government schools and
the allocation of that funding to individual non-government systems and schools.
Recommendation 13
The Australian Government should work with the states and territories and the non-government
sector to further refine the indicative schooling resource standard amounts for primary and secondary
students. This should occur by mid-2012 to facilitate negotiations over the implementation of the
new funding arrangements for schools. This work should commence immediately with the National
Schools Resourcing Body to take responsibility for progressing it as soon as it is established.
xxiii

Recommendation 14
The schooling resource standard should include loadings for:
• school size and location
• the proportion of students in a school who are Indigenous or from low socioeconomic backgrounds,
with loadings to increase for schools where the concentration of such students is higher
• the proportion of students in a school with limited English language proficiency.
Loadings for students with disability should be added as soon as possible once work underway on
student numbers and adjustment levels is completed. The Australian Government should work with
the states and territories and the non-government sector to develop and check specific proposed
loadings by mid-2012.
Recommendation 15
Schooling resource standard per student amounts applying in 2014 should thereafter be indexed
annually based on actual changes in the costs of schooling incurred by reference schools. Both the
per student amounts and the loadings should be reviewed by the National Schools Resourcing Body
before the commencement of each funding quadrennium. Indexation and review should occur within
an institutional framework that ensures that the process is independent, transparent and rigorous.
Recommendation 16
Australian governments should fully publicly fund the recurrent costs of schooling for government
schools as measured by the resource standard per student amounts and loadings.
Recommendation 17
Australian governments should base public funding for most non-government schools on the
anticipation that the private contribution will be at least 10 per cent of the schooling resource standard
per student amounts.
Recommendation 18
Australian governments should fully publicly fund the recurrent costs of schooling for non-government
schools as measured by the resource standard per student amounts and loadings where the school:
• does not charge compulsory fees and has no real capacity to do so, or
• provides education to students with very high needs, such that without full public funding of the
school’s resource standard those needs would not be met.
The eligibility of particular non-government schools for full public funding should be determined by
the National Schools Resourcing Body.
Recommendation 19
To meet the Australian Government’s announcement that no school will lose a dollar per student as a
result of this review, a minimum public contribution towards the cost of schooling should apply to
non-government schools at a level between 20 to 25 per cent of the resource standard per student
amounts without loadings.
xxiv

Recommendation 20
For the purposes of allocating public funding for non-government schools and systems, all Australian
governments should:
• adopt a common concept of need for public funding based on the capacity of the school or system
to contribute towards its total resource requirements
• commence work as a priority to develop, trial and implement a better measure of the capacity of
parents to contribute in consultation with the non-government sectors.
The Australian Government should continue using the existing area-based SES measure until this
better measure is developed.
Recommendation 21
For the purposes of allocating public funding for non-government schools, the minimum private
contribution should be anticipated for schools with SES scores in the lowest quarter of scores. The
minimum public contribution should apply to schools with SES scores above around 130. The precise
school SES scores and the shape of the anticipated private contribution between these two points
should be set in a way that balances:
• minimising the extent and incidence of any differences between the schooling resource standard
required by each non-government school and system and the resources currently available to it
from all sources
• preserving reasonable incentives for an adequate private contribution towards the schooling
resource standard across non-government schools with various capacities to contribute.
Recommendation 22
The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the non-government
sector, should negotiate more balanced funding roles as part of the transition to a new funding model
for all schools, with the Australian Government assuming a greater role in the funding of government
schools and the states in relation to non-government schools. This should occur within a governance
framework that gives certainty and stability around expected future funding levels for schools from all
government sources and operational independence for non-government schools.
Recommendation 23
Given the primary responsibility of government and non-government system authorities for the
funding and operation of their schools, public funding for systems should be assessed and calculated
at system level provided that systems:
• are transparent about the basis on which they allocate any public and private funding to member
schools and the purpose for which it is spent
• report publicly when the allocation of total resources to schools deviates significantly from the
principles in the schooling resource standard
• continue to report income and expenditure from each source for individual member schools on the
My School website.
xxv

Recommendation 24
In establishing a baseline level of existing funding for the schooling resource standard and loadings,
the Australian Government should roll in, to the maximum possible extent, all general recurrent
funding for schools as well as targeted funding programs for non-government schools and National
Partnerships, subject to appropriate transitional arrangements.
Recommendation 25
In order to successfully implement the funding reforms in this report, the Australian Government
should, in collaboration with state and territory governments and in consultation with the
non-government sector, develop transitional arrangements that:
• provide certainty to systems and schools about funding during the implementation period,
consistent with the Australian Government’s announced commitments
• recognise the need for extensive negotiation involving all governments and non-government school
authorities along with associated changes to agreements and legislation
• acknowledge the fiscal pressures on governments while moving to reap the benefits of a more
outcomes-driven approach to funding as quickly as possible.
Recommendation 26
The Australian Government and state and territory governments, in consultation with the
non-government sector, should, as a matter of priority, progress work on collecting nationally
consistent data on students with disability and the level of educational adjustments provided to them to
enable national data to be collected and reported from January 2013.
Recommendation 27
The National Schools Resourcing Body should work with the Australian Government and state and
territory governments in consultation with the non-government sector to develop an initial range for a
student with disability entitlement. The entitlement should be:
• provided in addition to the per student resource standard amounts
• set according to the level of reasonable educational adjustment required to allow the student to
participate in schooling on the same basis as students without disability
• fully publicly funded and applied equally to students in all schooling sectors.
Recommendation 28
The National Schools Resourcing Body should undertake work to determine the resourcing needs of
government and non-government special schools catering for students with disability.
Recommendation 29
Funding for capital purposes should be available to both government and non-government systems
and schools outside of the framework of a recurrent schooling resource standard.
xxvi

Recommendation 30
School Planning Authorities with government and non-government sector representation should be
established within each jurisdiction and work to develop a coordinated approach to planning for new
schools and school growth.
The Australian Government should establish a School Growth Fund for new schools and major school
expansions, with the School Planning Authorities solely responsible for the approval of funding
to projects.
Recommendation 31
Australian Government investment in non-government school infrastructure should be maintained and
continue to be provided in partnership with relevant Block Grant Authorities.
The Australian Government should provide an additional amount of funding to support major works
and infrastructure in existing government schools in each state and territory.
Recommendation 32
The National Schools Resourcing Body should develop a national definition of the maintenance and
minor works responsibilities of schools and education authorities required to be addressed from
recurrent funds. This definition should be considered and agreed by the Australian and state and
territory governments as a basis for capital and recurrent funding arrangements.
Recommendation 33
The Australian and state and territory governments should, in consultation with the non-government
sector, strengthen public accountability for the public funding of school capital projects.
Recommendation 34
School Infrastructure Development Grants and the School Growth Fund should be supplemented
annually in line with movements in the Producer Price Index – Non-Residential Building Construction.
Recommendation 35
The Australian Government and state and territory governments should establish a National Schools
Resourcing Body. This body would be made responsible for a range of tasks including:
• the ongoing maintenance and development of the schooling resource standard and loadings
• the annual indexation and periodic review of the schooling resource standard and loadings based
on the latest available data
• ongoing research, analysis and data improvement to ensure continuous improvement within the
schooling sector
• developing expected standards to which school buildings must be maintained and built.
Members would be appointed to the body on the basis of merit and expertise, and be independent
of government. The body should be provided with a realistic operational budget funded by all
governments to support the commissioning of research and data work as appropriate.
xxvii

Recommendation 36
In establishing a National Schools Resourcing Body, the Australian Government and state and territory
governments should also establish a representative advisory group to provide advice to the body on
schooling matters. Membership should include representatives from both the government and
non-government school sectors.
Recommendation 37
The current National Education Agreement should be revised to ensure that it meets the requirements
of the new funding framework and reflects the renegotiated roles and responsibilities of funding
partners. This should also include the development of state and territory based schedules attached to
the revised agreement that reflect specific funding and educational requirements of that jurisdiction.
Recommendation 38
The Australian Government and state and territory governments should negotiate revised funding
agreements with non-government system authorities and independent schools to reflect roles and
additional conditions under the new funding framework and in line with a renegotiated National
Education Agreement with state and territory based schedules.
Recommendation 39
The Australian Government and state and territory governments should legislate the proposed
funding framework to ensure certainty and transparency of public funding for all systems and schools.
Legislation at both levels of government should operate together to ensure that the total level of public
funding is guaranteed for all systems and schools over a 12-year cycle.
Recommendation 40
The National Schools Resourcing Body should work with the states and territories, the
non-government school authorities and the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting
Authority (ACARA) to develop a more robust national data collection, consistent with the proposed
funding framework, that allows for a deeper national understanding of schooling outcomes. The
appropriateness of what data should be used should be jointly worked through by the Ministerial
Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, ACARA and the National
Schools Resourcing Body.
Recommendation 41
The Australian Government should create a fund to provide national leadership in philanthropy in
schooling, and to support schools in need of assistance to develop philanthropic partnerships.
xxviii

Findings
Finding 1
Australian schooling needs to lift the performance of students at all levels of achievement, particularly
the lowest performers. Australia must also improve its international standing by arresting the decline
that has been witnessed over the past decade. For Australian students to take their rightful place in a
globalised world, socially, culturally and economically, they will need to have levels of education that
equip them for this opportunity and challenge.
Finding 2
The challenge for the review is to design a funding model that adequately reflects the different needs
of students to enable resources to be directed to where they are needed most. All Australian students
should be allowed to achieve their very best regardless of their background or circumstances.
Finding 3
Australia’s schooling system needs to help ensure that the targets for students attaining Year 12 or
equivalent qualifications are met and that students leave school with the skills and capacities required
to actively participate in society, and contribute to Australia’s prosperity.
Finding 4
Data indicate that Australia is on track to achieve the broader Year 12 or equivalent attainment
target for 2015. However, the lack of data to measure progress against the target to halve the gap for
Indigenous students in Year 12 or equivalent attainment is of serious concern.
Finding 5
The performance of Australia’s schooling system is about more than just literacy and numeracy
results in national and international assessments and Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates. Defining
and measuring the broader schooling outcomes is difficult and requires further development and
information gathering if Australia wants to be able to gauge the effectiveness of its schooling system
as a whole.
Finding 6
Australia lacks a logical, consistent and publicly transparent approach to funding schooling.
Finding 7
There is an imbalance in the provision of funding to government and non-government schools by
the Australian and state and territory governments. In particular, the Australian Government could
play a greater role in supporting state and territory governments to meet the needs of disadvantaged
students in both government and non-government schools.
xxix

Finding 8
In recognising the many benefits of government and non-government school systems, future funding
arrangements for schooling should continue to enable systems to make decisions around the
redistribution and allocation of resources at the local level, with enhanced accountability.
Finding 9
The Average Government School Recurrent Costs measure lacks a convincing educational rationale.
Meeting Australia’s educational challenges requires a funding benchmark that is linked to educational
outcomes and is able to respond to changes over time in performance and the delivery of schooling.
Finding 10
Public funding arrangements need to reflect the nature of the educational challenges faced by a
system or school given its characteristics and student population, regardless of whether it is in the
government or non-government sector.
Finding 11
Within the new funding framework there needs to be an explicit difference between setting a standard
for the resourcing of schooling and indexation for changes in the costs related to the delivery of
that standard.
Finding 12
For the purposes of developing future recurrent funding arrangements, it would be appropriate
to continue to exclude the user cost of capital, depreciation, capital expenditure and payroll tax.
Superannuation and long service leave expenses should be included.
Finding 13
The most efficient way to meet the Australian Government’s announcement that no school would lose
a dollar per student as a result of this review is through a minimum public contribution towards the
cost of schooling in non-government schools.
Finding 14
Poor-quality school infrastructure and facilities can contribute to a decline in enrolments in
some schools.
There is no national standard against which the adequacy of school facilities can be assessed.
Therefore, it is not clear whether all school facilities are appropriate to provide a high-quality
21st century education.
The adequacy of school facilities should be defined in terms of their educational value, and the
definition should be flexible to take into account differences in educational needs between schools and
changes over time.
xxx

Finding 15
In order to address deficiencies in school and regional level planning, government and
non-government school systems need to ensure that schools and their communities are more
involved in the development and planning of school facilities to ensure that the best design
outcomes are achieved.
The enforcement and public reporting against equity and educational objectives should ensure that the
public investment into infrastructure and capital projects is being directed towards those schools that
require the most assistance.
Finding 16
Current planning processes are not sufficient in responding effectively to changing educational needs
based on demographic and social change. There should be effective coordinated planning between
schooling sectors and at the local area level.
There needs to be an improvement in the accountability and coordinated planning by all schooling
sectors around the use of public funding in the establishment of new schools. Public investment in
new schools should take into account the needs of the community and the facilities currently available
for students.
Finding 17
New funding arrangements for schooling should aim to ensure that:
• differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or
possessions
• all students have access to a high standard of education regardless of their background or
circumstances.
Finding 18
Strategies to address educational disadvantage in school are most effective when integrated with, and
complementary to, approaches to support early childhood development.
Finding 19
The key dimensions of disadvantage that are having a significant impact on educational performance
in Australia are socioeconomic status, Indigeneity, English language proficiency, disability and
school remoteness.
Finding 20
There are complex interactions between factors of disadvantage, and students who experience
multiple factors are at a higher risk of poor performance.
xxxi

Finding 21
Increased concentration of disadvantaged students in certain schools is having a significant impact on
educational outcomes, particularly, but not only, in the government sector.
Concentrations of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous students have the
most significant impact on educational outcomes.
Finding 22
The existing resourcing provided to the government and non-government school sectors for students
with disability remains an issue. Students with disability in non-government schools receive
substantially less public funding than their counterparts in government schools.
Finding 23
The lack of robust, nationally comparable data on funding for disadvantaged students and its impact
on improving educational outcomes is a significant concern. If Australia is to achieve greater equity in
educational outcomes across its schooling system, these data will be paramount in ensuring funding is
directed to where it is needed most, and improvements can be measured and strengthened over time.
Finding 24
An evidence base is emerging from National Partnership arrangements demonstrating that
investment in integrated strategies that are responsive to local circumstances and need can be
effective in improving outcomes for disadvantaged students. Critical elements in these strategies
include building teacher capacity, strengthening instructional leadership and engaging parents and
the broader community.
Finding 25
All schools are responsible for supporting students who are unable to remain within a school,
and should have welfare policies that seek to find the most appropriate learning environment for
their needs.
Finding 26
The panel notes the Australian Government’s response to the recommendations in the Realising
potential: Businesses helping schools to develop Australia’s future report, particularly those aimed at
building capacity in schools to develop partnerships with community and business.
xxxii

1 Schooling in Australia

2

1.1 Australia’s schooling system
Australia’s schooling system is divided into three sectors, each of which has a significant enrolment
share. In 2010, 66 per cent of students attended government (public) schools, with the remaining
34 per cent of students attending non-government (private) schools. Non-government schools include
Catholic schools, educating 20 per cent of all students, and independent schools, educating 14 per cent
of all students.
This chapter highlights the different characteristics within and across the three schooling sectors,
including differences in the student populations they serve. The high degree of choice within
Australia’s schooling system and the consequences of this choice are also discussed.
The final part of the chapter discusses the total expenditure on Australian schooling by governments,
and provides a breakdown of the resources each funding partner provides to each sector, including
income from private sources. The role of each funding partner is discussed further in Chapter 2.1.
1.1.1 Schools and student enrolments
In 2010, there were 9468 schools in Australia, educating some 3.5 million full-time equivalent student
enrolments. Of these schools, 6357 were primary schools, 1409 were secondary schools, 1286 were
combined primary and secondary schools, and 416 were special schools catering for students with
disability or learning difficulties. The large number of primary schools reflects the provision of primary
schools, particularly government and Catholic schools, in most localities across Australia, as well as
the comparatively smaller student populations in these schools (see Table 1).
In contrast to government and Catholic schools, most independent schools are combined primary and
secondary schools (63 per cent), and a smaller number are primary schools.
There is also a distinction between schools and school campuses. Schools in all three schooling
sectors can have one or more campuses attached to a ‘head campus’. These schools are counted as
one school by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In 2010, there were some 161 government
subsidiary campuses, 79 Catholic subsidiary campuses, and 226 independent subsidiary campuses
(DEEWR administrative data 2010). Schools with multiple campuses may have a head campus located
in a metropolitan area, with subsidiary campuses in provincial and remote areas.
Over the past decade, the number of schools across Australia has decreased by just over 130 schools.
During this time the number of government schools fell by 223, and the number of Catholic and
independent schools increased by 12 and 79 schools respectively. By 2010, there were 6743 government
schools, 1708 Catholic schools, and 1017 independent schools.
3

Schools
Table 1: Fast facts and figures – schooling in Australia, 2010
9,468
Primary schools 6,357
1,409
Combined schools 1,286
416
Catholic(a) Independent
6,743 1,708 1,017
1,034 15% 303 18% 72 7%
Special schools 332 5% 27 2% 57 6%
3.5 million
(a) 713,289 20%
Total number of schools
Secondary schools
Special schools (for students with disability)
Government
Total number of schools
Secondary schools
Total number of full-time equivalent students
Number and percentage attending Catholic schools
Schools by sector
Primary schools 4,879 72% 1,230 72% 248 24%
Combined schools 498 7% 148 9% 640 63%
Students
2.3 million 66%Number and percentage attending government schools
491,233 14%
(
iNumber and percentage attending independent schools
a) Includes Catholic systemic and non-systemic schools.
Source: ABS 2011c, Schools, Australa 2010, cat. no. 4221.0.
While the total number of schools has decreased over the past decade, the total number of students in
schools has increased. In all states and territories across Australia, the number of students attending
non-government schools has consistently increased at a greater rate than for students attending
government schools. Catholic and independent schools had the largest overall proportional increase
in students over the last five years with 6 per cent and 14 per cent increases respectively. Students
attending government schools increased over the same time by less than 2 per cent (ABS 2011c).
There have also been notable trends in the growth of certain student cohorts across the schooling
sectors. There has been strong growth in the number of funded students with disability in schools,
with numbers having risen from 109 719 full-time equivalent students in 2000 to 172 311 full-time
equivalent students in 2010, an increase of 64 per cent. Similarly, the number of full-time equivalent
Indigenous students in schools has steadily increased over the past decade from 111 989 students in
2000 to 162 293 students in 2010, an increase of almost 70 per cent (ABS 2011c).
Approximately 2.3 million full-time equivalent students currently attend government schools,
713 289 attend Catholic schools, and 491 233 attend independent schools.
1.1.2 Schooling sectors
All government schools and most non-government schools are part of a school system, with each
school system having its own common ownership or ethos. These systems play an important role in
the delivery of schooling across Australia. Funding policies over many years have supported these
systemic traditions and administrative arrangements.
4

However, systems are not a prominent feature of the independent sector. Over 80 per cent of
independent schools are stand-alone entities that are managed by a principal and overseen by a
governing body.
Government school sector
Government or state-run schools have origins which date back to before federation. With the idea of
equal rights for all citizens, landmark legislation was passed in each of the colonies of Australia by the
1880s that created free, compulsory and secular education for all students (Wilkinson et al. 2006). It
was also around this time that education became compulsory for the primary years of schooling. While
some Indigenous Australians were enrolled in schools in these early years, practices of segregation
and exclusion existed (Cadzow 2007).
Following federation in 1901, state and territory governments remained constitutionally responsible
for providing secular schooling that was free and open to any child who was eligible to attend. This
responsibility continues today with education departments in each state and territory managing
the policy and overall administration of government schools. State and territory governments are
also responsible for registering and regulating all schools in their state or territory. The criteria for
registration vary across the states and territories. Generally speaking, schools must satisfy a number
of requirements under the broad categories of staff, curriculum, health and safety, governance and
financial viability (see Chapter 2.4).
The responsibility of state and territory governments to ensure universal access to education for all
Australian students extends to providing government schools or support (through distance schooling
options) in all populated areas, including very remote areas. It also means catering for students
with significant disabilities and behavioural management needs. However, non-government schools
also play a role in the universal provision of schooling, particularly in some remote and very remote
locations where a non-government school may be the only school servicing a community.
While government schools guarantee students access to a primary or secondary school within a
designated zone, a number of states and territories have lifted requirements that restrict enrolments
to within zones, allowing parents to enrol their children in non-zoned government schools if there are
sufficient places. Government school systems have also developed policies that provide for modest
fees to be charged for additional materials and excursions. However, all state and territory education
Acts specify that government schooling is either free or that a student should not be denied an
education program because a payment has not been met (Keating et al. 2011). In addition to these
fees, schools and their associated parents and citizens’ (P&C) associations can raise funds through
other activities. However, fees and other private contributions make up a small proportion (5 per cent)
of the overall funding of government schools in Australia.
Government school systems differ markedly in size. A number of states and territories cluster
government schools into regions, districts or networks to facilitate the administration of schooling.
There are also a number of structures at the local school level, such as P&C associations, school
boards and school councils in some jurisdictions, which can assist in setting key directions for
the school, although the extent that these are used and the power enacted to such bodies varies
considerably from state to state.
Government school systems also differ in the way they operate and allocate resources to schools.
While the sector has traditionally been centralised in the allocation of resources to schools, processes
have changed over recent decades. The 1973 Report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools
Commission (Karmel Report) expressed the view that ‘responsibility should be devolved as far as
possible upon the people involved in the actual task of schooling’. Starting in Victoria in the 1990s,
5

and since then in other states to varying degrees, there has been a growing push to devolve decision
making closer to the point of educational delivery, including greater control over the management and
administration of funds. Issues remain about how this operates in practice (Caldwell and Spinks 2008)
and whether it is appropriate for all schools.
Government schools have also become diverse in a number of ways. There has been an increase in
specialist schools with an emphasis on particular subject areas, selective schools that recruit students
based on academic performance regardless of the area in which they live, and single-sex schools.
Catholic school sector
Catholic schools have operated in Australia since the first half of the 19th century (Wilkinson et al.
2006). In 1879, the Catholic Bishops of Australia released a Joint Pastoral Letter stating that Catholic
families must send their children to a Catholic school to ensure these children receive religious
education (Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney 2011). Most of the schools were staffed by religious orders,
which was important as the legislation passed throughout the colonies abolished state aid for
non-government schools. In order to be accessible to all Catholic families, the fees charged by
Catholic schools were low.
The purpose of Catholic schooling today is still to provide holistic education that includes religious
instruction. Most Catholic schools have also continued to charge modest fees to enable Catholic
schooling to be accessible to students from all backgrounds, including those who may not be Catholic.
Some 96 per cent of all Catholic schools are members of Catholic school systems operating in each
state and territory. Seventy-two Catholic schools are not members of a system, but have been included
with systemic Catholic schools in the aggregate data presented in this report. Within this group are
schools that have been recognised by the responsible Catholic bishop, as well as around six
self-identified Catholic schools that have not been recognised.
Non-systemic Catholic schools are mostly owned by religious congregations or orders rather than the
dioceses’ Catholic Education Offices, and receive funding directly from the Australian Government and
state and territory governments, like other independent schools.
The eight state and territory Catholic systems operate under Catholic Education Commissions and
work in partnership with Catholic Education Offices within each diocese to provide advocacy and
representation, and oversee the distribution of government funding to diocesan education offices
and/or schools. However, the roles and responsibilities of the Catholic Education Commissions and
Catholic Education Offices across Australia vary considerably, reflecting local histories and influences.
Some Catholic systems also redistribute private income between schools on a co-responsibility basis.
Generally speaking, the various roles and functions of the Catholic Education Commissions and
Catholic Education Offices allow them to assume overall responsibility for Catholic school governance,
viability, accountability and compliance within a highly devolved framework for school management.
This framework is based on the principle of ‘subsidiarity’, where decisions are made as close to the
local level as appropriate and feasible. While these school systems are required to ensure that their
schools achieve appropriate education standards, this framework provides schools with a high level of
autonomy over pedagogy, curriculum, staffing, facilities and finances.
Catholic Block Grant Authorities are linked but are separate from the Catholic Education Commissions
in each state, and assess applications from Catholic schools for funding under the Australian
Government’s Capital Grants Program. They also play a similar administrative role in other
6

application-based capital funding programs, such as the Trade Training Centres and Building the
Education Revolution National Partnerships.
Some Catholic schools provide boarding facilities to students. Around 6560 students board at
47 Catholic schools across Australia (DEEWR administrative data 2010).
Independent school sector
Independent schools are usually established and developed by community groups, commonly, but not
always with religious affiliations, to meet particular schooling needs. In 1970, independent schools
enrolled 4 per cent of all students in Australia. Most of these students attended denominational
Christian schools, comprising Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Seventh-day
Adventist schools. Other independent schools were Jewish and non-denominational schools, as well
as a small number of other schools (ABS 1971). By 2010, the enrolment share of the independent
sector had increased to 14 per cent.
Today, there is a high degree of diversity among schools in the independent school sector. Some
85 per cent of students in the independent sector attend schools that provide religious education, or
promote a particular educational philosophy or philosophical affiliation (see Table 2). These schools
also serve a broad range of students, from low socioeconomic status communities to those from
higher socioeconomic backgrounds, with fee structures adjusted accordingly. Independent schools are
the major providers of boarding schools in Australia, with 15 683 students boarding at 125 independent
schools across Australia (DEEWR administrative data 2010).
Students’ access to independent schools is generally at the discretion of the school and dependent on
the extent to which prospective students meet the values and aspirations of the school, and parents
that are willing and able to meet the fees charged by these schools. Some schools offer bursaries and
scholarships to high-achieving children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Over 80 per cent of independent schools are non-systemic. These schools are not-for-profit
institutions that are set up and governed independently. They are managed by their own board of
governors or by a management committee which is the key decision-making body responsible for the
provision of education in the school, planning for current and future developments and staffing, and
school resourcing. However, there is considerable variation in the legal structures among schools
and further variation in the decisions that are made at the school board level and those made by the
principal.
Around 180 independent schools are members of 18 school systems that include Lutheran,
Seventh-day Adventist and Anglican systems organised on a geographical basis. Compared to the
Catholic sector these systems are considerably smaller and the system authorities play a smaller role
in the distribution of government funding, with funds generally distributed to individual schools on the
same basis as they are received from governments (see Chapter 2.1).
Associations of Independent Schools are not-for-profit peak bodies in each state and territory that
represent the interests of most independent schools to governments and in the industrial sphere. They
also support member schools in a range of areas including governance and professional development,
and play a key role in administering and distributing certain funding programs to member schools,
such as the Australian Government’s targeted programs under the Schools Assistance Act 2008.
As in the Catholic sector, Block Grant Authorities work in partnership with Associations of Independent
Schools and have an administrative role in relation to capital funding.
7

Schools
Student
2 226 0.05
156 137,840 27.98
10 5,597 1.14
42 17,840 3.62
8 4,039 0.82
136 53,840 10.93
2 1,012 0.21
1 40 0.01
29 20,458 4.12
Islamic 32 20,210 4.10
20 9,005 1.83
85 36,578 7.42
39 3,965 0.80
Non-denominational 188 72,434 14.70
8 3,894 0.79
6 2,130 0.43
Other(a) 85 15,212 3.09
5 2,489 0.51
16 6,841 1.39
14 9,847 2.00
47 11,047 2.24
1 1,271 0.26
42 7,586 1.54
43 49,303 10.01
Table 2: Affiliations of independent schools, 2010
enrolments
Percentage of
enrolments
Ananda Marga
Anglican
Assemblies of God
Baptist
Brethren
Christian Schools
Churches of Christ
Hare Krishna
Interdenominational
Jewish
Lutheran
Montessori School
Orthodox, Greek
Orthodox, other
Other religious affiliation
Pentecostal
Presbyterian
Seventh-day Adventist
Society of Friends
Steiner School
Uniting Church of Australia
64 50,721
8 3,469
(
iNon-systemic Roman Catholic
Non-systemic other Catholic
a) ‘Other’ includes special schools, international schools, Indigenous schools, and community schools.
Source: DEEWR admnistrative data 2010.
8

1.1.3 Student profile within the schooling sectors
Each schooling sector caters for a broad range of students, including students from a variety of
regions, and social and cultural backgrounds. There is also variation in the extent that educational
disadvantage is present across the schooling sectors. While the government school sector caters for
the largest proportion of educationally disadvantaged students, the number of disadvantaged students
enrolled in Catholic and independent schools has risen significantly over recent years. In 2010,
26 636 full-time equivalent students with disability were enrolled in Catholic schools, and 10 556 in
independent schools, an increase of 90 and 88 per cent respectively since 2000 (DEEWR administrative
data 2010). Similarly, in 2010 15 193 full-time equivalent Indigenous students were enrolled in Catholic
schools, and 8646 in independent schools, an increase of 63 and 91 per cent respectively since 2000
(ABS 2011c).
Government school sector
There is a disproportional number of students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds attending
government schools, as indicated by data collected by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority (ACARA) on the occupation and education level of students’ parents (the
socio-educational advantage measure).
In 2010, 36 per cent of all government school students were from the lowest quarter of
socio-educational advantage compared to 21 per cent of Catholic school students and 13 per cent
of independent school students. The remaining government school students were almost equally
distributed across the remaining quarters of socio-educational advantage, as shown in Figure 1.
Across all sectors, there are some schools with far greater concentrations of students in the lowest
quarter, as well as other schools that cater for more students from the higher quarters of
socio-educational advantage.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Bottom quarter
IndependentGovernment
13
15
26
47
21
21
28
29
36
20
22
22
Figure 1: Distribution of students by socio-educational advantage quarter,
by sector, 2010
Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
Catholic
Per cent
Note: Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
9

Figure 2 shows that of all students in the lowest quarter of socio-educational advantage, almost
80 per cent attended government schools. Figure 2 also shows that government schools provide
for a high proportion of Indigenous students and students with disability. In 2010, 85 per cent of all
Indigenous students attended government schools, comprising 6 per cent of the government school
population. Seventy-eight per cent of students with a funded disability attended government schools,
some 5.9 per cent of all students in the sector.
In 2010, 2.3 per cent of the total student population was enrolled in schools in remote and very remote
areas. Of these students, 83 per cent attended government schools (see Figure 2).
While the national aggregate of students in remote and very remote areas is quite small, students
in these areas are concentrated in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland and South
Australia. New South Wales also has more than 5500 students attending schools in remote or very
remote areas (Rorris et al. 2011). The Northern Territory, in particular, has a significant number of
students attending schools in remote and very remote areas, with 45 per cent of all students attending
schools in these areas. Unlike other states and territories, only a slightly higher percentage of
students attend government schools in remote and very remote locations in the Northern Territory,
compared with students attending non-government schools.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Independent
Government
All students:
)
Bottom SEA
quarter (c)
Remote and
)
Students with
disability (b)
Indigenous (a)
66
20
14
68
20
12
79
15
6
83
13
4
78
16
6
85
9
5
(iiFigure 2: Proportion of students by disadvantage group, by sector, 2010
Catholic
enrolment
share (aLBOTE (c)
very remote
areas (bPer cent
Note: Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding. LBOTE proportions are based on the proportion of students identifying as LBOTE at
time of NAPLAN testing.
Sources: a) ABS 2011c, Schools, Australa, 2010, cat. no. 4221.0; (b) DEEWR administratve data 2010; (c) ACARA dataset 2011.
The proportion of students from a language background other than English (LBOTE) across the three
schooling sectors broadly reflects the enrolment share for each sector (see Figure 2).
10

Catholic school sector
Data indicate that there is a more even spread of socioeconomic backgrounds among students
attending Catholic schools, than government and independent schools. In 2010, 21 per cent of students
attending Catholic schools were from the bottom quarters of socio-educational advantage. Figure 1
shows that slightly greater proportions of Catholic school students fall into the top two quarters of
socio-educational advantage, with 28 per cent of students in the third quarter and 29 per cent of
students in the highest quarter.
In 2010, 9 per cent of all Indigenous students attended Catholic schools. This amounted to around
2 per cent of the student population in Catholic schools (see Figure 2). In 2010, 16 per cent of all
funded students with disability attended Catholic schools, around 3.7 per cent of all students in
Catholic schools.
In 2010, 13 per cent of all students who attended schools in remote and very remote areas attended
Catholic schools (see Figure 2), a smaller enrolment share than the overall Catholic sector enrolment
share of 20 per cent. However, there are a sizeable number of Catholic schools in remote and very
remote areas, with around 65 schools (3.7 per cent of all Catholic schools) located in these areas.
Independent school sector
Figure 1 shows that almost half of all independent school students (47 per cent) fall into the top
quarter of socio-educational advantage. Some 13 per cent of students in the independent sector
are in the bottom quarter of socio-educational advantage, followed by 15 per cent and 26 per cent
in the second and third quarters respectively. However, there are variations in the socioeconomic
backgrounds of students attending certain independent schools that are not reflected in these average
distributions. Some independent schools draw their total enrolments from low socioeconomic status
communities, including communities with high numbers of parents who do not speak English, and
Indigenous communities.
In 2010, 5 per cent of all Indigenous students attended independent schools, which was around
1.8 per cent of all enrolments in the independent sector (ABS 2011c). Around 6 per cent of all funded
students with disability attended independent schools, equating to 2.1 per cent of all enrolments in
the sector.
In 2010, 4 per cent of all students attending schools in remote or very remote areas attended
independent schools (Figure 2), representing 0.7 per cent of all students in the independent sector.
Like the Catholic sector, around 3 per cent of all independent schools are located in remote and very
remote areas, including some schools that service high numbers of Indigenous students.
1.1.4 Choice within the schooling system
The prominence of non-government schools in Australia, all of which receive some level of
government funding, sets it apart from many Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development
(OECD) countries. As shown in Figure 3, government schooling is the dominant model for most OECD
countries. There tends to be more variation in the senior years of schooling, with more schooling
systems having larger numbers of government-supported and non-funded non-government schools in
upper secondary education.
The large number and types of non-government schools in Australia provides parents with a high
degree of choice in schooling options for their children. This choice is a value supported by many—
non-government schools may provide an education that is consistent with a family’s values, or may
be regarded as providing a quality education, fostering strong academic and non-academic outcomes.
Choice in schooling has also been linked to a number of benefits to the schooling system as a whole.
11

A study commissioned by the OECD found that schooling systems that provided choice between
government and non-government schools resulted in notably improved academic outcomes across the
system (Woessmann et al. 2007).
However, not all Australian parents are able to access or afford such choice in schooling, particularly
those from low socioeconomic backgrounds. While some non-government schools may offer parents
scholarships covering all or part of a student’s fees, or may discount or waive fees due to financial
hardship, these benefits are not available to all.
Some parts of the community have voiced concern about the consequence of Australia’s competitive
market for school education. These concerns centre on the alleged segregation of students into
schools with markedly differing socioeconomic compositions, largely based on the ability and
willingness of parents to pay fees. This segregation is considered to have been exacerbated by the
government sector’s gradual loss in market share to the non-government sector, resulting in the
government sector educating an increasing proportion of educationally disadvantaged students. It
is suggested that this has impacted on the capacity of some government schools to provide a quality
education for all students.
Government Non-government (government supported) Non-government (non -funded)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Slovenia
IrelandJapanKoreaFinlandCzech RepublicIcelandTurkeyNorwayPolandGermanyEstoniaSwitzerlandCanadaUnited Kingdom
Austria
Slovak RepublicItaly
GreeceSweden
Luxembourg
MexicoHungary
United StatesPortugalNew ZealandDenmarkFranceAustraliaSpainBelgiumChile
Slovenia
IrelandJapanKoreaFinlandCzech RepublicIcelandTurkeyNorwayPolandGermanyEstoniaSwitzerlandCanadaUnited Kingdom
Austria
Slovak RepublicItaly
GreeceSweden
Luxembourg
MexicoHungary
United StatesPortugalNew ZealandDenmarkFranceAustraliaSpainBelgiumChile
Primary education
iiFigure 3: Distribution of enrolled students by school type, 2009
Per centPer cent
Upper secondary education
Note: Countres are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students enrolled in non-government institutions in primary
education.
Source: Reproduced from Education at a glance 2011: OECD indcators 2011a, Table C1.4.
12

1.1.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
IndonesiaHungaryBrazilNorway
RussianFederation
SlovakRepublicCzech RepublicJapan
LuxembourgGermanySpainItaly
PortugalCanadaAustralia
AustriaPolandSlovenia
MexicoNetherlandsFinlandEstonia
FranceSwedenIrelandUnited States
KoreaChile
IsraelUnited KingdomDenmarkSwitzerlandArgentinaBelgiumNew ZealandIceland
iGovernment schools currently enrol the majority of educationally disadvantaged students. Enrolment
data also confirms a steady drift of students from the government sector to the non-government
sector that has been evident since the late 1970s, as well as a tendency for parents from higher
socioeconomic backgrounds to move their children from government schools to non-government
schools or select-entry government schools. This is thought to commonly occur in the transition from
primary to secondary school. Watson and Ryan (2010) found that almost 60 per cent of the decline in
government school enrolments between 1975 and 2006 occurred in the top half of the socioeconomic
status distribution.
School resourcing
A country’s expenditure on schooling can indicate the priority it gives to education (OECD 2011b).
Government expenditure on schooling in Australia is relatively low in comparison to other OECD
countries. The OECD estimates that public expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education in Australia was 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008, compared
to an OECD average of 3.5 per cent of GDP (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education as a percentage of GDP, 2008
Per cent
Public expenditure on educational institutions Private expenditure on educational institutions
OECD average (includes public and private expenditure) OECD average (public expenditure)
Source: Reproduced from Education at a glance 2011: OECD indcators 2011b, Table B2.2.
In terms of private expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education,
Australia is above the OECD average, with private expenditure equating to 0.6 per cent of GDP in
2008, compared with the OECD average of 0.3 per cent of GDP. These data can be explained in part by
Australia’s large non-government school sector.
Public expenditure or funding for schooling is provided by the Australian Government and state
and territory governments, with all schools receiving some level of funding from both levels of
government. Private expenditure is mostly provided through parental fees, but also from activities such
as fundraising, donations, and interest and profits. Generally speaking, school expenditure involves
13

recurrent expenses, including the resources required to support disadvantaged students, and capital
or infrastructure expenses.
The balance between the various income sources a school receives varies within and across the
schooling sectors. Government schools receive most of their funding from state and territory
governments, Catholic schools receive the bulk of their funding from the Australian Government,
and independent schools on average have the highest level of private income, although this varies
considerably across the sector (Keating et al. 2011). Levels of resourcing in schools have been
recently influenced by National Partnerships, including the Building the Education Revolution National
Partnership, which have provided additional substantial support to schools in all schooling sectors.
Funding for schooling in aggregate
In 2009, the total net recurrent income of all Australian schools was almost $39 billion (ACARA dataset
2011). This total included private income and targeted program funding, but did not include recurrent
income that had been allocated to capital projects. Some three-quarters of these funds were directed
to the employment of 249 200 full-time equivalent teachers and 8700 specialist staff (ABS 2010e).
The net recurrent income reported by ACARA also includes central administrative costs relating to
schools that are owned and operated by each respective system. However, it does not include costs
for providing policy and regulatory services for all schools in a jurisdiction, like some boards of
studies costs.
In 2009, $6.4 billion was expended on capital projects across all schooling sectors (ACARA dataset
2011). It should be noted that ACARA only reports on monies that were spent on capital projects in a
given year, not the total income that may have been received by a system or school for capital purposes.
The capital expenditure from Australian Government capital funding is atypical for all sectors for
2009 due to the Building the Education Revolution National Partnership, and to a lesser extent the
Digital Education Revolution and Trade Training Centres National Partnerships (see Chapter 2.4). For
example, the Australian Government Capital Grants Program provided some $135.27 million to
non-government schools in 2009; however, a total of $1.35 billion in Australian Government funding
was expended on capital projects in non-government schools in this year.
The level of net recurrent income received by each schooling sector in 2009 was broadly consistent
with their respective enrolment share (see Table 3). However, this trend did not hold for capital
expenditure, with the Catholic and independent sectors expending more per enrolment share than the
government sector.
All schools $39.0 billion
$25.2 billion 65% 66%
Catholic schools $7.0 billion 18% 20%
Independent schools $6.6 billion 17% 14%
Table 3: Income and expenditure on schooling, 2009
Net recurrent income Enrolment share
Government schools
Capital expenditure Enrolment share
All schools $6.4 billion
$3.2 billion 49% 66%
Catholic schools $1.6 billion 26% 20%
Independent schools $1.6 billion 25% 14%
Government schools
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
14

Net recurrent income per student
As illustrated in Figure 5, the average net recurrent income per student in 2009 was $11 121 for the
government sector, $10 002 for the Catholic sector, and $13 667 for the independent sector.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
– 0.1
0.2
0.4
9
1.6
10
– 0.9
0.6
2.6
2
5.7
– 1.6
0.9
8.2
1.7
4.5
GovernmentCatholicIndependent
$’000 per student
Figure 5: Average net recurrent income per student by source of income
and sector, 2009
Net recurrent income
Deductions for capital
Other private sources
Fees, charges and parental contributions
State government recurrent funding
Australian Government recurrent funding
11.1
Net recurrent income
Deductions for capital
Other private sources
Fees, charges and parental contributions
State government recurrent funding
Australian Government recurrent funding
Net recurrent income
Deductions for capital
Other private sources
Fees, charges and parental contributions
State government recurrent funding
Australian Government recurrent funding
13.7
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
The government sector had the highest average net recurrent income per student in the Northern
Territory and Western Australia. The Catholic sector had the lowest net recurrent income per student
in every state and territory, with the exception of the Northern Territory. The independent sector had
the highest average net recurrent income per student in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania,
Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory (ACARA dataset 2011).
In 2009, an average of 80 per cent of net recurrent income for government schools came from state
and territory governments, with around 15 per cent from the Australian Government, and 5 per cent
from private sources. In the Catholic sector, an average of 20 per cent of net recurrent income came
from state and territory governments, 57 per cent from the Australian Government and 23 per cent
from private sources.
An average of 12 per cent of net recurrent income in independent schools came from state and
territory governments, 33 per cent from the Australian Government, and 55 per cent from private
sources. However, there is a large degree of variation in the ways in which individual schools are
resourced across the sector. In 2010, some 72 per cent of all independent schools received more
than half their net recurrent income from Australian Government and state and territory government
funding (ACARA dataset 2011).
15

Total capital expenditure
As Figure 6 shows, in 2009 over $3.1 billion was expended on capital projects in government schools.
Approximately 48 per cent of this expenditure came from state and territory governments, 46 per cent
from the Australian Government, and the remaining 6 per cent from private sources, including new
school loans, fee income allocated to current capital projects and other identified private sources.
GovernmentCatholicIndependent
$ billions
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
3.15
0.01
0.0003
0.17
1.52
1.44
1.63
0.25
0.29
0.23
0.06
0.81
1.6
0.42
0.38
0.22
0.04
0.55
Figure 6: Total capital expenditure by source of funding and sector, 2009
Total capital expenditure
Other specific private sources
New school loans
Fee income allocated to current capital projects
State government capital funding
Australian Government capital funding
Total capital expenditure
Other specific private sources
New school loans
Fee income allocated to current capital projects
State government capital funding
Australian Government capital funding
Total capital expenditure
Other specific private sources
New school loans
Fee income allocated to current capital projects
State government capital funding
Australian Government capital funding
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
In the Catholic sector, $1.6 billion was expended on capital projects, with 49 per cent of capital funding
provided by the Australian Government, 4 per cent from state and territory governments, and the
remaining 47 per cent from private sources.
In the independent sector, a total of $1.6 billion was spent on projects in 2009. The major source
of capital funding was from private sources (63 per cent), followed by 34 per cent in Australian
Government capital funding, and just over 2 per cent provided by state and territory governments.
Investment by parents and the community
Parents and members of the community (the latter through philanthropic giving) make a significant
contribution towards the total income of schools, predominantly in non-government schools. As such,
they are an important funding partner. Chapter 4.5 provides more detail on the role of philanthropy
in schooling.
The discussion to date has focused on the net recurrent income schools receive. Net recurrent income
includes income from fees, charges, parental contributions and other private sources that is expended
on the ongoing operation of schools, such as teaching and non-teaching staff salaries and school
operating costs. However, it does not include the proportion of private income that is used to invest in
capital infrastructure. This private income is shown in Figure 5 as deductions to the recurrent income
for each schooling sector.
16

Figure 7 shows the private income (fees and other private income) for each schooling sector as a
proportion of the total gross recurrent income of schools in the sector.
Australian Government State government
IndependentGovernment
0
5.0
3.63
20.31
1.46
4.03
2.25
2.18
4.34
– 0.82
– 1.39
$ billion
Figure 7: Private income as a proportion of total gross recurrent income,
by sector, 2009
Private (fee and other income)
Catholic
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
The total private income received by all schools in 2009, including private income that was used for
capital purposes, was $8.1 billion. This represented 19.9 per cent of the total gross recurrent income
that was received by all schools ($40.4 billion). Of the $8.1 billion, $6.7 billion was received from
parental fees. The remaining $1.4 billion was provided to schools from other private sources, including
donations, interest on bank accounts, profits on trading activities, and profits from the sale of assets.
This income includes some private income received for capital purposes, as well as income from
school fundraising activities.
1.1.6 Conclusion
The features of Australia’s schooling system must be understood before the funding needs of schools
can be determined. The demographics of the student population vary within and across the three
schooling sectors, as do the resources available to and expended by schools in each sector. Data
clearly show that there is variation in student demographics and their related educational needs within
each schooling sector, and on average, there are higher numbers of disadvantaged students attending
government schools. Data also point to a notable decline in the number of students attending
government schools, with an associated increase in students attending non-government schools.
These patterns influence the educational outcomes of students, as shown in Chapter 1.2.
17

18

1.2 Schooling performance and outcomes
Research is clear about the many economic and social benefits of high-performing schooling systems,
which aim to provide all children with the opportunity to reach their full educational potential.
This chapter describes Australia’s performance in international and national assessments, as well
as rates of Year 12 and equivalent attainment, and concludes that while Australia has a relatively high
performing schooling system there are a number of areas of concern. Performance patterns across
the three schooling sectors and the states and territories are then discussed, as well as factors that
can impact on student outcomes. These factors are discussed further at Chapter 3.2.
While the quality of a schooling system is often measured by outcomes in standardised assessments,
such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and Australia’s National Assessment Program—Literacy
and Numeracy (NAPLAN), or by senior secondary school completion rates, the panel recognises that
education is about much more than this. In Australia, schools aim to promote the intellectual, physical,
social, emotional, moral, spiritual, aesthetic, and wellbeing of young people, as well as ensure the
nation’s ongoing economic prosperity and social cohesion (MCEETYA 2008). Many parents consider
that while providing outstanding education must be the key focus of schools, the ability of a school to
foster these broader outcomes is also important.
The broader outcomes of schooling are discussed in the concluding part of the chapter. While these
outcomes are an important part of schooling, little data are available on the development of these
skills and attributes among Australian students.
1.2.1 High-performing schooling systems
Individuals who reach their full potential in schooling are usually able to make better career and life
choices, leading to successful and productive lives. Success in schooling also helps to provide the
skills and capacities needed to keep a society strong into the future. It deepens a country’s knowledge
base and level of expertise, and increases productivity and competitiveness within the global economy.
Hanushek and Woessmann (2010) found that higher educational achievement led to significantly bigger
economic returns, when they investigated the relationship between cognitive skills and economic
growth in developed countries.
As many researchers have found (Johnston 2004; Levin 2003; Lochner 2011; Wilkinson and Pickett
2009), higher levels of education are associated with almost every positive life outcome—not only
improved employment and earnings, but also health, longevity, successful parenting, civic participation
and social cohesion. Countries that have significant numbers of people without adequate skills to
participate socially and economically in society endure higher social costs for security, health, income
support and child welfare.
Studies have shown that it is both the quality of education (measured by student outcomes) and its
quantity (years spent in schooling) which contribute to a country’s economic growth and the wellbeing
of its population.
19

1.2.2 Outcomes in international and national assessments
Programme for International Student Assessment
Performance in PISA indicates that Australia has an above-average schooling system. In 2009,
Australia’s mean scores ranked significantly above the OECD average in the three PISA domains
of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. The proportion of students in the bottom and top
proficiency levels for reading literacy in Australia (14 per cent and 13 per cent respectively) was also
higher than the OECD average of 19 per cent and 8 per cent (Thomson et al. 2011).
However, Australia’s average rankings in PISA have declined over the past decade, and mask
significant variation within and across the three schooling sectors. In 2000, only one country
outperformed Australia in reading literacy and mathematical literacy, and two countries outperformed
Australia in scientific literacy. By 2009, Australia was significantly outperformed by six other countries
in scientific literacy and reading literacy, and 12 countries in mathematical literacy (see Table 4).
PISA, 2000 and 2009
mean
OECD
Reading 2000 528 500 546 396 Finland
2009 515 493 556 425
Canada
Mathematics 2000 533 500 557 334 Japan
2009 514 496 600 419
Canada, Netherlands, and
2000 528 500 552 375
2009 527 501 575 416
Shanghai–China, Finland,
iTable 4: Australia’s mean scores in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy in
Australia’s
score
average
score
Highest
scoring
country
Lowest
scoring
country
Countries that significantly
outperformed Australia
Shanghai–China, Korea, Finland,
Hong Kong–China, Singapore and
Shanghai–China, Singapore,
Hong Kong–China, Korea,
Chinese Taipei, Finland,
Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Japan,
Macao–China
Science Japan, Korea
Hong Kong–China, Singapore, Japan
and Korea
Note: Singapore and Chinese provnces (other than Hong Kong) did not participate in PISA 2000.
Sources: Lokan, Greenwood and Cresswell 2001; Thomson et al. 2011.
Many of the countries that outperformed Australia are located within the Asia–Pacific region. Based on
trends observed in PISA results over the past decade, the OECD warns that advanced economies, like
Australia, must not take for granted that they will always have skills and capabilities superior to those
in other parts of the world. At a time of intensified global competition, countries will need to work hard
to maintain a knowledge and skill base that keeps up with changing demands (OECD 2010).
20

Box 1: PISA and proficiency scales
PISA is a standardised assessment that is administered across 34 OECD countries and
31 partner countries involving 15 year-old students in schools. In PISA 2009 the domains
tested were reading literacy, mathematical literacy and scientific literacy. Student achievement
in the PISA domains is reported in terms of levels of proficiency across a scale from 1 to 6.
Students achieving Level 1 have difficulty completing basic tasks. Students achieving Level 6
have mastered complex tasks. Level 2 represents the base level of achievement needed for full
participation in society.
Figure 8 shows that the distribution of reading scores in Australia across most proficiency levels has
regressed between 2000 and 2009, including a notable reduction in the proportion of top performers.
Figure 8 also shows an increase in the number of students performing below Level 2 in reading
literacy from 12 per cent in 2000 to 14 per cent in 2009. It is concerning that this increase in below
Level 2 performance has occurred for all three PISA domains.
2000 2009
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
14
19
20
26
28
25
24
18
13
Figure 8: Percentage of Australian students by highest level of reading literacy
proficiency in PISA, 2000 and 2009
Level 5 or above Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Below Level 2
Per cent
Sources: Lokan, Greenwood and Cresswell 2001; Thomson et al. 2011.
In 2009, an average of one in seven students performed below the proficiency baseline for all PISA
domains compared with one in eight students in 2000. If this ratio were to apply to the current total
student population, some 500 000 students would leave school without the skills and knowledge
needed to participate effectively in a globalised society.
Just as concerning is the fall in the percentage of students who are performing at Level 5 and above.
Between 2000 and 2009, the percentage of students performing at Level 5 and above declined from
18 per cent in 2000 to 13 per cent in 2009.
Australia’s performance slippage in PISA is more pronounced in mathematical literacy, with a decline
from 47 to 38 per cent of students performing at Level 4 and above between 2000 and 2009, and an
21

increase from 10 to 16 per cent of students performing below Level 2. Comparisons with specific
countries make this point more clearly. In 2009 PISA mathematical literacy, 17 per cent of Australian
students achieved Level 5 or above compared to 18 per cent in Canada, 22 per cent in Finland and
36 per cent in Singapore. In terms of those achieving below Level 2, 16 per cent of Australian students
achieved below this level compared to 8 per cent in Finland, 10 per cent in Singapore, and 11 per cent
in Canada.
Performance inequality
Performance in PISA also highlights the significant gap between the highest and lowest performing
students in Australia, relative to other OECD countries. The level of performance inequality in a
country can be illustrated by the difference in PISA scores of the lowest performing students (those at
the fifth percentile) and the highest performing students (those at the 95th percentile), irrespective of
student background (Jensen, Reichl and Kemp 2011). A lower score represents a more equal level of
performance of students across the schooling system.
As shown in Figure 9, Australia has a high degree of performance inequality, higher than the
OECD average. The countries represented in Figure 9 were the top ten ranking countries in 2009
for reading literacy. Countries that have high educational outcomes tend to also have low levels of
performance inequality.
The decline in performance at both ends of achievement indicates that Australia must focus on raising
performance across the board if it wants to improve its productivity and competitiveness as a nation.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
TIMSS measures performance in mathematics and science for Year 4 and Year 8 students, with the
assessment conducted across a number of OECD countries every four years. The most recent data
from TIMSS 2007 show that less than 10 per cent of Year 4 and Year 8 students in Australia achieved
the advanced performance benchmarks in mathematics and science. This percentage was lower
than that of many of Australia’s Asian neighbours, England and the United States, but higher than
the international mean. There was also a higher percentage of Australian students in Years 4 and
8, relative to countries such as the United States, who did not meet the lowest benchmark in both
mathematics and science.
Like Australia’s performance in PISA in 2009, Australia was significantly outperformed in the
TIMSS Year 4 mathematics assessment by 12 OECD countries, and by nine countries for the Year 8
mathematics assessment. Similar rankings applied for the science assessment across both years.
The performance of Australian students in TIMSS has remained largely static over the last decade,
whereas the achievement of many other comparable countries, such as England, has increased
(Thomson et al. 2008).
Finding 1
Australian schooling needs to lift the performance of students at all levels of achievement,
particularly the lowest performers. Australia must also improve its international standing by
arresting the decline that has been witnessed over the past decade. For Australian students to
take their rightful place in a globalised world, socially, culturally and economically, they will need
to have levels of education that equip them for this opportunity and challenge.
22

Figure 9: PISA reading literacy mean scores for the top ten ranking countries and
performance inequality, 2009
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
Mean score
400
350
Mean score
300 OECD average
mean score
Difference in
scores between
95th-5th
percentile
OECD average –
Difference in
Difference in scores
250
200
150
scores between
95th-5th
100
percentile
50
0
China
a
FinlandHong Kong–China
e
anada
land
n
a
Netherlands
Singapor
r
e
l
i
Japa
a
Ko
t
r
a
s
New Ze

C
u
Shanghai
A
Source: Reproduced from Jensen, Reichl and Kemp 2011 (Table 1) using data from Thomson et al. 2011.
Much more is known about the relationship between disadvantage and poor educational outcomes
(see Chapter 3.2) than about the reasons for the downward trend in overall performance. There is
no clear evidence to explain the decline in performance and rankings in PISA, nor Australia’s static
performance in TIMSS.
However, there is evidence that indicates what makes the highest performing countries successful.
This evidence suggests that societal issues, such as the level of inequality within a country, combined
with particular characteristics of a country’s schooling system, create the conditions for high
educational outcomes. Quality teaching is undoubtedly one of the most important in-school factors.
McKinsey and Company concluded from their extensive international study of high-performing
schooling systems that the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers
(Barber and Mourshed 2007).
Important factors that are frequently cited (Caldwell and Harris 2008; Hattie 2008; Levin 2008) as
contributing to good student outcomes based on the practice of high-performing schooling systems
across the world include:
• attracting and retaining the best teachers
• adopting a national curriculum
• using data to inform continual assessment
• having high expectations for the achievement of all students
• student engagement and motivation
• parent and community engagement
• using funding where it can make the most difference
• increasing school-level autonomy balanced with appropriate accountability.
23

National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy
Using Australia’s own national testing system (NAPLAN), a number of statistically significant
improvements in the average levels of performance have been observed between 2008 and 2010,
particularly between successive Year 3 cohorts. The majority of students are also performing at or
above the national minimum standard in the six domains tested. However, as shown in Box 2, this
standard represents achievement at a basic level only.
Box 2: NAPLAN and the minimum standard of achievement
NAPLAN results are reported using five national achievement scales, one for each of the
NAPLAN domains of reading, writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation, and numeracy.
Each scale consists of 10 bands, which represent the increasing complexity of the skills and
understandings assessed by NAPLAN from Years 3 to 9. Six of these bands are used for reporting
student performance in each year level. Student raw scores on tests are converted to a NAPLAN
‘scale score’ so that scores can be located on national scales for each domain.
The second lowest band on each scale represents the national minimum standard expected of
students at each year level. Students whose results are in the minimum standard band have
typically demonstrated only the basic elements of literacy and numeracy for the year level.
Students whose results are in the lowest band for the year level have not achieved the national
minimum standard for that year, and need focused intervention and additional support to help
them achieve the skills they require to progress in schooling.
Despite these average achievements, some significant concerns prevail. An unacceptable percentage
of students are not meeting the nationally agreed minimum standard of achievement in literacy
and numeracy, with a higher number of Indigenous students, students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds, and students from remote schools not achieving this standard.
Data also show that more students in the later years of schooling are not meeting minimum
standards. In 2010, between 7 and 13 per cent of Year 9 students did not meet the minimum standard
of achievement in literacy and numeracy assessments (see Figure 10). These percentages are similar
to the percentage of students who did not meet the proficiency baseline for reading literacy in PISA in
2009 (14 per cent of all students tested, as shown in Figure 8).
24

Figure 10: Percentage of Year 9 students above and below the national minimum
standard for the five NAPLAN domains, 2008 and 2010
Per cent
Numeracy2010 6.9 93.1
2008 6.4 93.6
punctuation2010 9.2 90.8Grammarand
2008 10.1 89.9
Spelling2010 10.4 89.6
2008 10.2 89.8
2010 12.8 87.2Writing2008 12.8 87.2
2010Reading9.3 90.7
2008 7.1 92.9
At or above the national minimum standard
Below the national minimum standard
Source: ACARA 2010b, NAPLAN achievement in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy: National report for 2010.
Outcomes across sectors and states and territories
There is considerable variation in performance across Australia’s education sectors, and states and
territories. Analysis of PISA and NAPLAN data indicates that a hierarchy of performance exists across
the three schooling sectors (see Figure 11).
In both PISA and NAPLAN assessments in 2009 and 2010 respectively, the independent sector as a
whole had the highest results, followed by the Catholic sector, and the government sector. This pattern
of average performance is evident in every state and territory, and is also present for other measures
of schooling performance, such as Year 12 attainment rates, absentee rates and tertiary entrance
ratings (The Nous Group 2011).
The average performance of the three schooling sectors masks the substantial variability in student
and school performance within and across the sectors. There is a notable difference in the outcomes of
select-entry government schools and other government schools. In New South Wales, 11 of the 20 top
schools in tertiary entrance assessment rankings were government schools, but only 28 of the top
100 schools were government schools. The government schools in the top 20 were selective high
schools, with similar student characteristics to some independent schools (The Nous Group 2011).
25

Figure 11: Mean scores in national and international assessments by sector,
2009 and 2010
Mean scores
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Reading Maths
2009 PISA Results
Science Writing Grammar Spelling
2010 Year 9 NAPLAN
Numeracy
Government
Catholic
Independent
Source: Reproduced from The Nous Group 2011, Schooling challenges and opportunities, Figure 15.
In addition, performance varies between states and territories. While NAPLAN is only indicative of
the four years of schooling and the five domains tested, it does show that some states and territories
perform better than others. Table 5 shows how state and territory achievement compared in Year 9
reading in 2010.
However, Australia’s decline in overall performance is spread throughout all schooling sectors.
For example, in PISA mathematical literacy testing, the percentage of 15 year-olds at Level 4 and
above declined from 35 to 32 per cent in government schools between 2003 and 2009. In Catholic
schools, the percentage of 15 year-olds at Level 4 and above fell from 48 to 43 per cent, and in
independent schools from 61 to 52 per cent.
There are also some substantial variations in literacy and numeracy achievement across the states
and territories as demonstrated in the 2009 PISA results. For the three PISA domains, all states and
territories performed at or above the OECD average, except Tasmania and the Northern Territory.
Students in these jurisdictions scored well below the national average and similar to the OECD average
in all domains. In the Northern Territory in reading literacy, students scored significantly lower than
the OECD average. The difference in mean scores between the highest and lowest performing state
and territory equated to between one and one and a half years of schooling (Thomson et al. 2011).
26

NSW Vic Qld WA SA NT
Mean 578.2 582.1 564.9 565.7 567.1 569.9 594.8 523.6 573.7
NSW 578.2
Vic 582.1
Qld 564.9
WA 565.7
SA 567.1
569.9
594.8
NT 523.6
573.7
iiii iiitii.
Table 5: Comparative achievement of Year 9 students in reading in NAPLAN, by state
and territory, 2010
State/ territory Tas ACT Aust
score
Tas
ACT
Aust
Notes: indicates average achievement sgnificantly higher, statistically, than comparison state or territory.
indicates no signficant difference, statistically, from comparison state or territory.
indicates average achievement sgnificantly lower, statistically, than comparison state or territory.
Source: ACARA 2010b, NAPLAN achevementn readng, wrng, language conventons and numeracy: National report for 2010
In comparing outcomes, it is important to recognise that each state and territory is working from a
different base and is presented with different challenges due to the profile of its students (see Table 6).
Some states and territories face far greater challenges than others. The Northern Territory has a high
proportion of Indigenous students, students from the lowest quarter of socio-educational advantage,
and students from remote and very remote areas. Tasmania also has a high proportion of students
from the lowest quarter of socio-educational advantage. The Australian Capital Territory, in contrast,
has far smaller proportions of disadvantaged students across the board.
27

Students in
(a) (%)
Indigenous
(b)
(%)
(c)
(%)
Students
with
disability(a)
(%)
Students in the
SEA(c) (%)
Table 6: Student characteristics by state, territory and sector in Australia, 2010
remote and
very remote
areasstudentsLBOTE
studentsbottom quarter of
NSW 0.5 4.4 28.1 5.4
30.2
Vic 0.1 1.2 25.3 5.0 28.6
Qld 2.8 6.6 6.4 4.1 30.0
SA 3.6 3.7 13.9 7.1 30.2
WA 6.9 6.4 15.2 3.2 29.0
1.1 6.7 4.8 4.5 44.6
NT 45.5 40.6 29.2 8.4 35.5
n.a. 2.2 16.3 3.8 11.3
2.9 6.0 20.5 5.9 35.7
Catholic 1.4 2.1 19.5 3.7 21.6
Independent 0.7 1.8 16.8 2.1 12.8
(iiTas
ACT
Government
n.a. = not applicable
Sources: a) DEEWR adminstrative data 2010; (b) ABS 2011c, Schools, Australia, 2010, cat.no. 4221.0; (c) ACARA dataset 2011 based on the
proportion of students and time of NAPLAN testng.
Equity of outcomes and performance of disadvantaged students
The variability in outcomes within and across Australia’s schooling system that can be attributed
to differences in students’ backgrounds or circumstances indicates inequity in the achievement
of outcomes. There are a number of student groups that, on average, achieve poorer educational
outcomes than other students, and this correlates closely with factors of disadvantage. One group
of students that has disproportionately poorer results in literacy and numeracy assessments and
other measures of educational performance are students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
The relationship between socioeconomic background and the performance of students in PISA is
pronounced, both in Australia and internationally, with socioeconomic status explaining 13 per cent
and 14 per cent of variation in student performance respectively (Thomson et al. 2011).
Chapter 3.2 shows that, on average, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Indigenous
students, students with disability, students from remote and very remote areas, and to variable
degrees, LBOTE students:
• are more likely to be considered developmentally vulnerable at school entry
• have lower performance on assessments throughout schooling, with the gap getting larger in the
later years of schooling
• have lower Year 12 and equivalent attainment rates.
28

Finding 2
The challenge for the review is to design a funding model that adequately reflects the different
needs of students to enable resources to be directed to where they are needed most. All
Australian students should be allowed to achieve their very best regardless of their background
or circumstances.
1.2.3 Year 12 or equivalent attainment
Year 12 attainment is associated with numerous positive outcomes for the individual, society and
the economy. Young people in Australia who have attained Year 12 have higher self-reported levels
of health (ABS 2011a). They are also more likely to continue with further study, including higher
education, and be employed in jobs with higher weekly earnings (see Figure 12). The Australian
Government has recognised the importance of students achieving a Year 12 or equivalent qualification
and, in conjunction with the states and territories, has set targets for improving Year 12 or equivalent
attainment rates (see Box 3).


2020.
Box 3: COAG targets for Year 12 or equivalent attainment
On 29 November 2008, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a substantial
reform package to increase Australia’s productivity starting with the early years, and moving
through school into the training system. Part of this reform agenda was the implementation of
the National Education Agreement from 1 January 2009, under the Intergovernmental Agreement
on Federal Financial Relations. The National Education Agreement includes two targets that
specifically relate to Year 12 or equivalent attainment. These are:
to lift the Year 12 or equivalent attainment rate to 90 per cent by 2020
to at least halve the gap for Indigenous students in Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by
On 30 April 2009, COAG agreed to accelerate the first target from 2020 to 2015. Delivered under
the National Partnership on Youth Attainment and Transitions, the revised target aims to increase
the proportion of young people aged 20 to 24 years who have attained Year 12 or equivalent or
AQF Certificate II or above to 90 per cent by 2015. Equivalent attainment to Year 12 is defined as
Certificate II or above for 2015 and Certificate III or above for 2020.
Students enrolled in senior secondary schooling may also have the option of completing Year 12
through vocational education and training (VET) programs, which enable them to undertake a range
of industry-based subjects and attain an Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Certificate II or
III. VET programs in schools may be conducted through specialised facilities (Australian Technical
Colleges) or generic training centres (Trade Training Centres), but may also include school-based
apprenticeships and, from 2012, National Trade Cadetships.
Students can also study AQF Certificate II, III or IV at Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and other
training institutions.
In terms of benefits to the individual, completing Year 12 alone has been estimated to return a
15 per cent increase in lifelong earnings and close to a 20 per cent increase for completing an AQF
Certificate III or IV (The Nous Group 2011). Year 12 or equivalent attainment also contributes to a more
skilled workforce, and consequently ongoing economic development and improved living conditions.
29

KPMG Econtech (2010) has attempted to estimate the potential contribution of the COAG productivity
agenda to labour productivity, labour force participation and the Australian economy. It found that the
school reforms, specifically achieving the National Partnership target to increase Year 12 or equivalent
attainment rates to 90 per cent by 2015, could generate medium to long term economic gains in the
order of an annual average increase of 0.65 per cent in GDP over the period 2010 to 2040. This would
be achieved through increased skill levels for the average Australian worker and would represent an
additional $11.8 billion (in 2008–09 prices) annually in the economy.
Figure 12: Median weekly earnings by highest level of education, 2009
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1,438
1,151
920
877
500
671 640 671
853Median weekly earnings $
Average
Graduatediploma
ar 12
ar 11
Bachelor
Year10
Advanced
Certificate
Certificate I/II
degree
or below
diploma/
III/IV
or above
diploma
Ye
Ye
Source: ABS 2010b, Education and Training Experience, 2009, cat. no. 6278.0.
Australia’s current levels of attainment
The number of Australian students who attain a Year 12 or an equivalent qualification has progressively
increased over the past decade. In 2001, 79 per cent of the population aged between 20 and 24 had
completed Year 12 or AQF Certificate II, and 77 per cent had completed Year 12 or AQF Certificate III.
By 2010, these percentages had increased to 86 per cent and 84 per cent respectively (ABS 2010c).
However, there remains a significant number of Australian students who do not attain Year 12
or equivalent.
Figure 13 shows progress against the Year 12 or equivalent attainment target for 2015. It indicates that
with the progress made over the past decade, Australia looks likely to achieve the 2015 target.
Robust data cannot be derived from the ABS Survey of Education and Work on Year 12 or equivalent
attainment rates for Indigenous students, as the sample size is too small. The best nationally
consistent data is that collected through the ABS Census of Population and Housing. In 2006, the
census showed that 47.7 per cent of Indigenous young people had completed Year 12 or equivalent, or
an AQF Certificate II or above (ABS 2006). This represents an increase by some 6.6 percentage points
from 2001 census data, and an average increase of 1.3 percentage points each year.
30

The absence of data means that measuring progress against the Indigenous student target is
problematic. An estimated trajectory for the target has been set, which indicates the census intervals
to 2020, and shows that the Year 12 or equivalent attainment rate for Indigenous people aged 20 to 24
needs to be 69 per cent for the gap to be halved. This projection is based on the achievement of the
2015 target.
70
75
80
85
90
95
20152013201120092007200520032001
iFigure 13: Progress towards COAG target for Year 12 or equivalent attainment rate
Per cent
Persons aged 20-24 who have completed Year 12
(or equiv.) or attained at Certificate II or above
COAG target
Source: ABS 2010c, Education and Work, Australa, May 2010, cat. no. 6227.0.
There is a clear need for further data on the Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates for Indigenous
young people during inter-census years. It may be possible for these data to be collected through
boards of studies certificates and VET completion data. While not nationally consistent, these data are
available annually.
In addition to increasing Australia’s performance in school and Year 12 or equivalent attainment
rates, increases in participation in higher education are also warranted if Australia is to maintain its
competitive advantage as a knowledge based economy (The Nous Group 2011). In 2008, the Review of
Australian Higher Education (Bradley Report) proposed a national target of least 40 per cent of 25 to
34 year-olds having attained a qualification at bachelor level or above by 2020. The target represents
an increase of some 7 per cent, with 33.3 per cent of 25 to 34 year-olds holding a bachelor’s degree in
2009. Higher Year 12 attainment rates will be vital in realising this target.
Like the variations in PISA and NAPLAN results between the states and territories, the proportion
of 20 to 24 year-olds who had attained Year 12 or Certificate III also varies considerably by state and
territory, ranging from 70 per cent in the Northern Territory to 89 per cent in the Australian Capital
Territory (see Figure 14). Attainment rates are affected by numerous factors, including literacy and
numeracy outcomes, so the results are not surprising. Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates can also
be influenced by interstate movements to pursue employment opportunities (ABS 2011a).
31

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
AustNTSAWAQldVicNSW
iFigure 14: Proportion of 20–24 year-olds who had attained Year 12 or equivalent, 2010
Year 12 or Cert III Year 12 or Cert II
ACT Tas
Per cent
Note: Error bars denote 95 per cent confidence intervals.
Source: ABS 2010c, Education and Work, Australa, May 2010, cat. no. 6227.0.
The opportunity cost of Australia failing to improve student performance and Year 12 or equivalent
attainment rates, both in terms of an individual’s life chances and in aggregate terms for the national
economy, is significant. The Intergenerational Report 2010, Australia to 2050: Future challenges, states
that over the next 40 years, Australia needs to achieve a productivity growth of 1.6 per cent per annum
(up from an average of 1.4 per cent over the last decade) to sustain our GDP growth (The Treasury
2010). Growth of this magnitude demands increased student performance and Year 12 or equivalent
attainment, and our schooling system needs to accommodate this.
Finding 3
Finding 4
Australia’s schooling system needs to help ensure that the targets for students attaining Year 12
or equivalent qualifications are met and that students leave school with the skills and capacities
required to actively participate in society, and contribute to Australia’s prosperity.
Data indicate that Australia is on track to achieve the broader Year 12 or equivalent attainment
target for 2015. However, the lack of data to measure progress against the target to halve the gap
for Indigenous students in Year 12 or equivalent attainment is of serious concern.
32

1.2.4 Developing confident and creative individuals, and active and
informed citizens
As reflected in the Melbourne Declaration, the outcomes of schooling are broader than just academic
skills. As well as setting equity and excellence in school education as the number one national goal,
the Melbourne Declaration focuses on the learning needs of all young Australians in the 21st century
to ensure that ‘all young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals
and active and informed citizens’ (MCEETYA 2008). This goal emphasises the importance of young
Australians developing personal morals and values, and attributes such as honesty, resilience,
empathy and respect for others.
In response to the world becoming a more integrated, technological and global community, students
must not only master the core skills, but also develop a capacity for problem solving and decision
making; creative and critical thinking; collaboration, communication and negotiation; and technology
and innovation. In the new Australian Curriculum, these skills and capacities are referred to as
general capabilities.
A focus on the broader outcomes of schooling leads to a more holistic approach to education,
encouraging students to become more resourceful and prepared for life beyond schooling. They are
also known to have a positive impact on individuals and society, promoting trust and tolerance and
leading to a healthier and more satisfied nation. However, the broader outcomes are often difficult to
measure and compare within a national and international context.
Submissions to the review have highlighted the importance of schooling in equipping students for
further education and the workplace. These submissions often noted that schooling is just one
influence on a young person’s development, and it can be difficult for schools to develop attributes
among students such as confidence, creativity and the ability to solve problems without effective
engagement with parents and families. In particular, parents play a critical role in shaping the
expectations and attitudes of their children towards school and broader life.
It is important that outcome measures for schooling capture information beyond basic skills and also
include information on the broader elements of a child’s educational development. Work is underway
through the National Assessment Program to survey students in Years 6 and 10 in each state and
territory on civics and citizenship and information and communications technology (ICT) literacy.
Students were first surveyed on civics and citizenship in 2004 and ICT literacy in 2005. The surveys are
conducted on a periodic basis, and the results are publicly reported.
Australia is also a founding member of an international team that is leading the Assessment and
Teaching of 21st Century Skills project. Together with three companies (Cisco, Intel and Microsoft), the
project will propose ways of assessing general capabilities or ‘21st century skills’, and will encourage
systems and schools to incorporate these skills into teaching and learning programs. The skills that
are the focus of the current research and development are problem solving, collaboration and ICT
literacy. It is expected that the project will report in 2012.
A range of data also exists at the state and territory level, collected through instruments such as
school destination surveys and parental satisfaction surveys, which provide insight into the broader
outcomes of schooling. Some of the instruments used in different states and territories include
On Track1 (Victoria) and Next Step2 (Queensland), both of which are large-scale school destination
1 On Track Destinations of School Leavers provides a comprehensive analysis of the destinations of Victorian students shortly after they
leave school from Years 10, 11 and 12. This analysis includes destinations by gender, year level, socioeconomic status, and regional areas;
reasons for not continuing in education and training; and details on the occupations and hours worked of employed school leavers.
2 Next Step is a survey of every student who completed Year 12 in the previous year in Queensland, in government and non-government
schools. The survey collects information about the initial study and employment destinations of young people after leaving school.
33

surveys that can be used by schools as a resource for curriculum planning, professional development
and to improve services to students. The On Track methodology has been applied to large cohort studies
in New South Wales and pilot studies in South Australia. Western Australia uses a student intention and
destination survey. Although these surveys may not use nationally consistent methodologies, they do
provide a wealth of information to draw upon for measuring schooling outcomes.
There is a clear opportunity to collect nationally consistent information on a fuller range of schooling
outcomes. Recommendations on measuring the outcomes of schooling and their relationship to school
resourcing are set out in Part 4 of this report.
Finding 5
The performance of Australia’s schooling system is about more than just literacy and numeracy
results in national and international assessments and Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates.
Defining and measuring the broader schooling outcomes is difficult and requires further
development and information gathering if Australia wants to be able to gauge the effectiveness of
its schooling system as a whole.
1.2.5 Conclusion
Australian students are on average performing well, both by national and international standards.
However, this ‘on average’ performance masks both a decline in the overall performance across
the entire distribution of students and the significant underperformance of students from lower
socioeconomic and Indigenous backgrounds.
The decline in performance across the entire distribution of students and the extent of performance
inequality is concerning and indicates that Australia’s standing as one of the countries heading the
world in education is slipping. Australia needs to arrest this decline and ensure that all students leave
school with good key foundational skills and a capacity to contribute to the nation’s future prosperity.
Australia also needs to continue to progress towards the national targets for Year 12 or equivalent
attainment, including the target for Indigenous students, to enable more young people to leave school
with the knowledge, skills and capability needed to meet future labour force demands.
In addition, research shows a clear relationship between the socioeconomic backgrounds of
students and their school performance. Addressing the performance decline and improving Year
12 or equivalent attainment rates will require a strong focus and priority within any funding model
to address levels of need. There is currently wide variation in these outcomes within and across the
schooling sectors and the states and territories, reflecting the different challenges they face. Australia
must encourage a culture of high expectations for all students across the schooling system as a whole,
but must also facilitate a lift in the sectors and the states and territories where the levels of need are
greatest. In line with their levels of need, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, schools with
high concentrations of disadvantaged students, and underperforming schools will require additional
support (both financial and non-financial resources) to enable appropriate outcomes to be achieved
across the schooling system.
Further attention also needs to be given to broader, more affective outcomes of schooling. These are
less tangible than outcomes that can be derived through standardised assessments, though are of
importance to Australia’s social and economic prosperity.
34

2 Current funding
arrangements

36

2.1 Roles of funding partners and systems
This chapter discusses the role of the Australian Government and state and territory governments as
partners in providing funding for schooling, and details the mechanisms employed by each partner in
funding government and non-government schools. The chapter also discusses the important role of
school systems in distributing funding and supporting schools, as well as other structures that can
provide support to non-systemic schools, such as Associations of Independent Schools and Block
Grant Authorities.
The chapter concludes by discussing a number of the challenges with the current funding
arrangements and identifies opportunities for creating a more coherent and transparent funding
approach across both levels of government, addressing the funding imbalance between the Australian
Government and state and territory governments, and strengthening the data collection and
accountability of school systems.
2.1.1 A partnership approach
It has been well established for some time that schooling in Australia operates as a partnership
between the Australian Government, state and territory governments and the non-government school
sector. This partnership recognises a range of national objectives and outcomes, as well as a number
of shared reform directions of national significance. The most recent manifestation and evolution of
this partnership is the Melbourne Declaration and the National Education Agreement.
Funding for schooling is shared between state and territory governments and the Australian
Government. Income from private sources, through parental fees, fundraising activities and
philanthropic contributions, is also an important part of the revenue base of schools, particularly
those in the non-government sector. This funding mix has resulted in a complex funding environment,
with an array of funding models that interact to provide the total level of funding to individual schools
(Deloitte Access Economics 2011).
The emergence of Australian schooling being a partnership with a range of stakeholders has
demanded the development of intergovernmental agreements and shared policy statements to give
effect to this evolving concept. The most recent is the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal
Financial Relations, of which the National Education Agreement is a schedule, which provides a
framework for policy collaboration on schooling between all governments. It also represents a new
and evolving approach to the way the Australian Government provides funding to the states and
territories for government schools. This approach has simplified the number of funding streams and
focuses on the achievement of outcomes rather than specifying input controls.
The strength of the Federal Financial Relations Framework is that it acknowledges that schooling,
among a number of other areas, is a national issue that requires a coordinated approach by
governments. It also recognises the important role that state and territory governments have as
owners and primary funders of government schools, and in allocating funding (from both Australian
Government and state and territory government sources) based on local needs and considerations.
However, some challenges remain, particularly in relation to how the Australian Government might
determine and adjust its funding role to accommodate the constantly changing nature of schooling.
A further challenge is determining the most appropriate level of information which is provided by the
states and territories on how funding is allocated to schools, and how best to research and report on
the impact that funding is having on student outcomes.
37

Over time in the non-government school sector, the Australian Government has become the primary
public funder, with state and territory governments playing a supplementary funding role. As
discussed briefly below, this is an artefact of Australian history and a reflection of the increasing
cost of providing an acceptable and contemporary level of education, rather than a planned goal by
successive Australian Governments to become directly involved in the provision of schooling, or to be
the primary public funder of non-government schools.
It is important that both levels of government work in partnership to provide funding for the
non-government school sector. The sector makes a significant contribution to progressing the
national objectives and outcomes of schooling as it educates 34 per cent of all Australian students.
Like government school systems, non-government systems provide many benefits in supporting their
member schools, and in redistributing and allocating funding and school income to schools based on
the needs of individual schools. While not formal systems, Associations of Independent Schools
in each state and territory also play a beneficial role in supporting the significant number of
non-systemic independent schools on industrial, governance and professional learning matters.
Some Associations employ specialist staff to work with schools on these matters.
2.1.2 Australian Government funding for schooling
The Australian Government has limited constitutional power in respect of schooling, and the authority
it has relates mainly to its powers to make grants to the states and territories for schools, provide
benefits to students, and regulate corporations.
The Australian Government began to provide funding for schooling during the 1960s in response to
concerns about resource adequacy across sectors and jurisdictions to provide the level and quality of
schooling that would meet Australia’s needs. These concerns stemmed from rapidly growing school
enrolments in the post-war period, a broadening curriculum and infrastructure constraints, and were
all viewed as requiring a national approach (Wilkinson et al. 2006). In addition, the Catholic sector
had experienced a significant shift in the composition of its teaching workforce from religious to lay
teachers, which in turn increased pressure on the resourcing of the sector.
The transfer of income taxation powers to the Australian Government in 1942 also exacerbated
disparities between the expenditure responsibilities and revenue-raising capacities of the states and
territories and the Australian Government (known as vertical fiscal imbalance). Further, there were
differences between the states and territories in terms of their capacity to meet growing educational
needs, especially in areas such as Indigenous education.
The goal of bringing all schools up to acceptable standards in terms of adequacy of resource inputs
was one of the major directions of the Karmel Report and of the Australian Government’s funding
policy for schooling over the subsequent period.
Over the last decade, as part of the evolving nature of the national partnership in schooling, the
Australian Government, in conjunction with the states and territories, has played a major role in
setting national policies to ensure that Australia’s schooling effort remains competitive within the
current and future global environment.
Some of these policies have directly related to schooling, while others have been aimed at providing
the states and territories with the resources to meet their constitutional obligations, including to
schooling. For example, the introduction of the goods and services tax (GST) and the equalisation
process to redistribute GST revenue to the states and territories is one such policy which aims to
ensure each jurisdiction has appropriate resources to deliver services across its population. The past
38

decade saw an increase in the Australian Government’s total investment in schooling from $4.8 billion
in 1999–2000 to $20 billion in 2009–103 (The Treasury 2000b; The Treasury 2009–10).
Other policies have attempted to make clear the link between national outcomes and reforms in
specific policy areas. For example, through COAG, the Australian Government and state and territory
governments have agreed to new priorities and reforms aimed at lifting national productivity and
building social inclusion by implementing national initiatives in early childhood, schooling, tertiary
education, employment and workplace relations. This reform agenda was implemented under the
Federal Financial Relations Framework, and has been accompanied by a significant increase in
Australian Government funding for schooling, mostly as a result of National Partnerships, as set
out below.
Federal Financial Relations Framework
The Federal Financial Relations Framework began on 1 January 2009 and provides an approach
to all Australian governments collectively progressing economic and social reforms. Central to
the framework is the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009, the COAG Reform Fund Act 2008, and the
corresponding Intergovernmental Agreement. The introduction of the framework also saw the
rationalisation of a number of Australian Government Specific Purpose Payments (SPPs) to the states
and territories, reducing the number of such payments from over 90 to five.
Under the framework, centralised bulk payments are made from the Australian Government Treasury
to state and territory treasuries for general or specific purposes. General revenue assistance,
including GST payments, can be used by the states and territories for any purpose including schooling.
SPPs and National Partnerships are to be used for specific purposes, like schooling.
Funding for government schools
The National Schools SPP is providing $18.3 billion to government schools over 2009 to 2013
(see Figure 15). This includes previously separate Australian Government recurrent funding, as well
as specific payments that were made for capital grants, targeted programs, and a number of additional
programs for defined areas of schooling. State and territory governments now have flexibility in how
they spend this funding across schooling, provided they are working towards the mutually agreed
outcomes and performance benchmarks specified in the National Education Agreement.
Prior to 2009, Australian Government recurrent funding for government schools was provided at
8.9 per cent and 10 per cent of the Average Government School Recurrent Costs (AGSRC) amounts for
primary and secondary school students respectively for each full-time student enrolment. From 2009,
these percentages were increased to 10 per cent of the AGSRC amounts for each full-time primary and
secondary student enrolment. In addition to recurrent funding, capital, targeted, Indigenous and other
specified programs were ‘rolled in’ to form the base of the National Schools SPP. The base is adjusted
annually to reflect changes in government school enrolments and growth in the AGSRC per student
amounts.
In addition to the National Schools SPP, nine National Partnerships are providing a further
$24.78 billion in funding to government and non-government schools in a number of priority reform
areas, with the majority of this funding to be expended by 2014–15 (see Table 7).
3 Australian Government funding for schooling in 2009–10 included $9.4 billion provided under the Building the Education Revolution
National Partnership.
39

Figure 15: National Schools SPP funding by state and territory, 2009 to 2013
$ billions
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Sources: The Treasury 2008–2010, Final budget outcome 2009–10; The Treasury 2011b, Budget 2011–12: Portfolio budget statements.
period funding ($)
Table 7: National Partnerships for schooling
National Partnership
Funding Total Reward
component
Proportion
allocated to
reward (%)
Trade Training Centres in Schools 2009–17 2.47 billion — —
2008–15 2.50 billion — —
2008–12 16.31 billion — —
(a) 2008–12 511 million v 68
2009–15 1.49 billion — —
(b) 2008–13 444 million v 79
2009–14 725 million v 14
2008–12 147 million — —
(c) 2011–14 196 million — —
24.78 billion
(a)
(b) i(c) ii–Fi.
Digital Education Revolution
Building the Education Revolution
Smarter Schools—Literacy and NumeracySmarter Schools—Low SES School Communities
Smarter Schools—Improving Teacher QualityYouth Attainment and Transitions
Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory
More Support for Students with DisabilitiesTotal
The remaining funding from the $540 million announced is COPE funding.
The remaining funding from the $550 millon announced is COPE funding.
The remainng funding from the $200 mllion announced is COPE and DEEWR departmental funding.
Source: The Treasury 20082011, nal budget outcome 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11
40

The Australian Government, state and territory governments and the non-government school sector
are currently negotiating a further National Partnership for the Empowering Local Schools initiative,
with negotiations expected to be complete by the end of 2011. Under the initiative, the Australian
Government has committed $69.1 million, with the bulk of this funding to be expended over 2011–12.
The initiative aims to increase the capacity of schools to make decisions at the local level.
Unlike the National Schools SPP, each National Partnership provides funding for government
and non-government schools. They generally have a co-investment requirement that obliges the
state or territory (or where relevant the non-government education authority) to continue their
own expenditures. These arrangements can be expressed in different ways, from dollar-for-dollar
matching (as for the Trade Training Centres National Partnership) to maintaining the pre-existing
levels of spending (as for the Building the Education Revolution and Digital Education Revolution
National Partnerships).
Some $800 million in National Partnership funding has been set aside for reward payments under
three National Partnerships: the Smarter Schools—Improving Teacher Quality and Smarter Schools—
Literacy and Numeracy National Partnerships, and the Youth Attainment and Transitions National
Partnership. Under the two Smarter Schools National Partnerships, reward payments represent the
major component of funding (see Table 7). Reward payments are contingent on meeting performance
benchmarks as assessed by the independent COAG Reform Council. For some National Partnerships,
states or territories may receive a pro-rata share of the reward funding if they partly achieve targets.
While most of the funding provided under the National Partnerships will cease by 2014–15, some
funding will continue under the Smarter Schools—Low Socioeconomic Status School Communities,
Digital Education Revolution and Trade Training Centres in Schools National Partnerships
into and beyond 2014–15. There is no provision for indexing funding amounts for any of the
National Partnerships.
A small number of Commonwealth own-purpose expenses continue to be administered to government
education authorities under programs outside the National Schools SPP and National Partnerships.
These are specific initiatives that align with the Australian Government’s policy priorities, such
as the National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Program and the National Schools
Chaplaincy Program.
National Education Agreement
The National Schools SPP and nine National Partnerships are delivered in line with the National
Education Agreement, which contains the objectives, outcomes, outputs and performance indicators,
and clarifies the roles and responsibilities that guide the Australian Government and state and
territory governments in schooling.
Consistent with the partnership concept that has become part of Australia’s approach to funding
for schooling, the Australian Government’s funding responsibilities under the National Education
Agreement extend to ensuring that funding arrangements for the non-government sector are
consistent with and support the responsibilities of the states and territories. It also specifies
responsibility for the allocation of funding to support improved service delivery and reform, including
for students with particular needs.
The National Education Agreement also sets out shared responsibilities of the Australian Government
and state and territory governments. Among a number of other responsibilities, the agreement states
that all governments should fund schooling to enable improved performance in nationally agreed
outcomes, design the funding mechanism by which the Australian Government funds the states and
territories, and support Indigenous outcomes.
41

Funding for non-government schools
The Australian Government is currently the primary public funder of non-government schools. Funding
is administered through the Schools Assistance Act 2008, and includes three main streams of funding:
recurrent, capital and targeted. More than $36 billion is being provided to non-government schools
under the Act over the period 2009 to 2013. Recurrent funding is driven by enrolments and a school’s
funding level is derived either on its socioeconomic status (SES) score, or a Funding Maintained or
Funding Guaranteed amount (see Chapter 2.3). Schools can also attract loadings for remoteness and
for high numbers of Indigenous students. Recurrent grants are supplemented annually in line with
movements in AGSRC.
Chapter 2.4 provides information on the current operation and indexation of the Australian
Government’s Capital Grants Program in the non-government school sector. The targeted programs
administered under the Schools Assistance Act 2008 mostly provide support for disadvantaged
students. These include the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program, the Country
Areas Program, and the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program. However, a program
to support students in non-government schools to learn languages other than English (the School
Languages Program) and funding for schools that have been affected by unforeseen, emergency
circumstances (Short Term Emergency Assistance) are also administered as targeted programs
under the Act. Targeted program funding is allocated through non-government system authorities
and Associations of Independent Schools, rather than directly to schools, and is indexed annually
using the AGSRC index (see Chapter 2.2). Like the government sector, non-government schools
also receive funding through the National Partnerships for schooling and various Commonwealth
own-purpose expenses.
2.1.3 State and territory government funding for schooling
State and territory governments are the primary funders of government schools, but do so in ways that
are complex and vary substantially among jurisdictions. They also provide some recurrent funding to
non-government schools, including funding for some disadvantaged students, and this is generally
based on a percentage of costs in their respective government schools. The quantum of financial
support provided to non-government schools from state and territory governments differs significantly
between jurisdictions (Keating et al. 2011).
Funding for government schools
In general, state and territory government school systems fund schools based on a variety of formulas
to determine a school’s recurrent or base allocation, and then add weightings and multipliers for
students facing disadvantage. Discrete programs and initiatives are also generally determined using
a formula (Keating et al. 2011). Further information on state and territory government funding for
capital projects in government schools and for disadvantaged students can be found in Chapter 2.4 and
Chapter 3.3 respectively.
Broadly speaking, each state and territory government school system allocates funding to government
schools through one of two methods. The first is a central resource allocation that allocates staff and
other resources, including school consumables, to schools. The second is a budgetary allocation that
is provided to schools, which then make decisions about how the funding is spent. Most government
systems use a mixture of these methods, with the level of budgetary responsibility afforded to schools
varying across states and territories (Keating et al. 2011).
42

Jurisdiction Method of funding
Table 8: State and territory recurrent and targeted funding for government schools
Recurrent and targeted funding for government schools
Allocation
New South Centralised system involving:
Wales • central allocation of resources—staff
allocation is based on a statewide
formula
• direct central payments of
school-based costs
Resources distributed to schools in five categories:
• staffing and salaries (based on student numbers,
school type, school characteristics and student
profiles)
• global funding (cash allocation to schools to meet
operational costs such as energy rates)
• tied and untied grants (for initiatives such as teacher
professional learning, community language schools,
boarding scholarships for isolated students)
• capital works and maintenance
• cleaning



Queensland







• independent public schools—school













Northern •
30% equity-based)

Victoria School budget allocation through:
the Student Resource Package
(incorporates teaching costs, school
running costs and targeted initiatives)
Schools have high degree of autonomy over the
allocation of funds through the Student Resource
Package including over some staff appointments
Needs-based funding built into school budgetary
formula based on assessments of student need
Centralised system involving:
direct central payments of
school-based costs (mainly staffing)
central allocations of grants (core and
targeted)
centrally delivered services (teacher
professional learning, scholarships)
Staff allocation and grants through statewide formula
at three levels: central, regional and schools
Needs-based funding included within staffing and
grant allocations
Grants (54 core and 25 targeted) to support specific
programs, including disadvantage
Western
Australia
Two systems:
mainstream—centrally allocated
budget allocation
Mainstream school staffing mainly through statewide
formula (incorporates needs-based through
multipliers and weightings for staff)
Independent public schools allocated one-line budget
providing autonomy over expenditure
South Australia School-based allocation provided through
the student-centred funding model
Three elements:
a base allocation (based on school type and size)
per capita allocation (based on year level)
program-based allocation (for disadvantaged students)
Tasmania Centralised and school-based systems:
centrally allocated staff
schools resources package
centrally run targeted programs
(predominantly National Partnerships)
Staff are centrally allocated and allocation for
disadvantaged students is incorporated into staffing
allocation
Schools resource package allows some decisions at
school level (maintenance and minor works, energy
and water)
Australian
Capital
Territory
Centralised system Direct central payments of school-based costs
Central allocation of resources (including staff, with
provision for disadvantaged students)
Central payments for school-based expenditure
Territory
Centralised system Central staffing allocation (70% enrolment-based and
Targeted programs (with base and equity components)
Source: Adapted from Keating et al. 2011.
43

In some jurisdictions, such as New South Wales and Queensland, central control is still a strong feature,
while Victoria and South Australia are the most decentralised systems. A number of other states are
implementing greater devolution in school budgeting, such as Western Australia where independent
public schools operate one-line budgets, giving schools autonomy over expenditure. However, even
in jurisdictions where decision making has been largely devolved to the school level, accountability
and reporting obligations, or a requirement to operate within set policy guidelines or departmentally
determined contractual arrangements, limit the decision making and the flexibility of schools (Deloitte
Access Economics 2011). Table 8 summarises state and territory government recurrent and targeted
funding arrangements for government schools.
Funding for non-government schools
State and territory governments provide funding to non-government schools for recurrent and targeted
purposes, usually through per capita allocations that are either a fixed percentage based on the state
or territory AGSRC (sometimes adjusted to exclude costs not applicable to non-government schools) or
an overall quantum of funding that has been agreed over time with the non-government sector (Deloitte
Access Economics 2011).
Jurisdiction
Table 9: State and territory recurrent funding for non-government schools, including
funding for disadvantaged students
Recurrent funding
Determination Allocation
New South • Non-government school funding • Distributed according to the 12 categories of the former
Wales pool set at 25% of NSW AGSRC Education Resources Index (ERI) system with separate
rates for primary and secondary students
• Catholic systemic schools funded at category 11




Queensland • •

• •
• •

• •

• •
Northern
• •
Victoria Victorian Government has
committed to increasing the funding
pool to 25% of the Victorian AGSRC
Indexed annually
Financial Assistance Model allocates per capita (41%) and
needs components (59%)
Needs component allocated on family background
measure plus other student and school characteristics
Link with state school costs
(currently 21.21% of Queensland
AGRSC)
Approximately three-quarters of funding is allocated as
a per student base component with different rates for
preschool, primary and secondary
Remainder is distributed on a needs basis using a
weighted combination of the Australian Government’s SES
score, the Schools Resource Index, isolation and other
measures
Western
Australia
Pool of funding set at no less than
25% of the WA AGSRC
Per capita rates vary by school level and category of need
with 10 funding categories based on the ERI
South Australia Previous year’s allocation adjusted
for inflation including 25% of agreed
salary movement in SA Department
for Education and Child Development
and a Treasury-determined factor
for the non-salary component
Per capita component based on enrolments, with higher
rates for secondary than primary, and a needs component
based on characteristics of schools and students
Additional funding for students with special needs
Tasmania 19.11% of state AGSRC Allocations based on enrolments, SES scores and
school-level weighting
Needs-based distribution reflects the Australian
Government–determined SES scores
Australian
Capital
Territory
Historical grant amounts indexed by
Consumer Price Index and adjusted
for ad hoc increases
Per capita basis according to funding scales based on ERI
Territory 21% of the NT AGSRC Per capita basis with separate rates for primary,
secondary, remote and severely disabled students
Source: Adapted from Keating et al. 2011.
44

The levels of funding vary, along with the mechanisms used to allocate it. A number of jurisdictions
have made policy or legislative commitments to maintain funding to non-government schools at
various percentages of their own state-specific AGSRC. These percentages vary from 19 per cent
to just over 25 per cent. A number have no formal link and use a historical level of funding indexed
for inflation.
The method for allocating recurrent funding in most jurisdictions has core and needs-based elements.
The needs-based elements are calculated using various methods including school Education
Resources Index scores calculated under the old methodology up to 2001 (see Chapter 2.3), the current
SES methodology or a state or territory’s own measure of need. Funding is also provided to support
targeted groups of students, such as students with disability and students in remote locations. Table 9
illustrates the different ways in which recurrent and targeted funding is provided to non-government
schools within the different jurisdictions.
A number of states and territories also provide support for capital projects in non-government
schools, mostly through low-interest loan or interest subsidy schemes.
2.1.4 Role of school systems
A significant feature of Australian schooling is that all government schools, most Catholic schools and
some independent schools are members of systems. There are 34 separate system authorities across
Australia, including the education departments and Catholic education commissions in each state
and territory. The remaining 18 systems are in the independent school sector. Only a small number of
independent schools are governed by these authorities (see Table 10).
Schools
Primary
8 6,743 1,390,543 901,255 2,291,798
8 1,638 380,092 278,360 659,451
18 178 43,100 40,065 83,165
34 8,559 1,814,734 1,219,680 3,034,414
iTable 10: Full-time equivalent enrolments in systemic schools, 2010
Systems enrolments
Secondary
enrolments
Total
enrolments
Government schools
Catholic systemic schools
Independent systemic schools
Total
Source: DEEWR admnistrative data 2010.
Systems receive block funding to distribute to schools using their own methods and formulas. The role
of systems in distributing funding is very important in the context of the contemporary partnership
approach to schooling.
The Australian Government is not a provider of schooling. Efficient and well-functioning school
systems provide assurance to the Australian Government that Australia has an effective and efficient
schooling effort without it needing to become involved as a provider of schooling. Consistent with the
general principle of subsidiarity, this enables Australia, with its large landmass and relatively small
population, to allocate the responsibility of the delivery of schooling to systems within the government
and non-government sectors.
The Schools Assistance Act 2008 and associated guidelines require a non-government entity to
meet certain requirements before it is recognised as a school system. In addition to a number of
administrative criteria, proposed school systems must be a body corporate and consist of a minimum
45

of 20 approved schools that are in receipt of Australian Government recurrent funding. Most of the
current systems that were set up prior to 2009 have fewer than 20 schools (see Table 11).
Affiliation
Number of
schools
Table 11: Independent schools systems, 2010
System
Lutheran Education Queensland 26
Lutheran Lutheran Education South Eastern Region (Vic, Tas, NSW) 33
Lutheran Schools Association of SA, NT and WA 15
6
3
10
3
2
7
2
7
6
5
9
9
9
7
Other 19
178
iSeventh-day Adventist
Adventist Education Victoria
Greater Sydney Adventist Schools
Northern Australian Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Seventh-day Adventist Church in South Australia
Seventh-day Adventist Church North New South Wales
South New South Wales Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church
South Queensland Conference Seventh-day Adventist Church
Tasmanian Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Western Australian Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Anglican
Anglican Schools Commission (Western Australia)
Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation
The South Australian Anglican Schools System
Christian
Northern Territory Christian Schools Association
Swan Christian Education Association
Victorian Ecumenical System of Schools
Total
Source: DEEWR admnistrative data 2010.
Under the guidelines, a system has overall responsibility for the distribution of funding and other
resources between member schools. It also accepts responsibility for the long-term viability of
member schools, as well as any liabilities to the Australian Government incurred by those schools.
Systems play a valuable role in developing new schools and supporting existing ones. Some
advantages of being part of a system include:
• creating efficiencies and enabling economies of scale in relation to schools being able to purchase
expertise and equipment
• ability to pool funds, leading to greater purchasing power of goods and services
• capacity of systems to enhance compliance and accountability
• ensuring financial viability of member schools
• cross-subsidising across the system to support developing and existing schools
• ability to redistribute and allocate funding to focus on particular issues, such as managing students
with specific needs
• participating in system school improvement and reform initiatives.
It is essential that systems are transparent about the income they receive from all sources, including
funding that is provided to system authorities from their member schools.
46

The 26 non-government school systems differ in their funding methodologies and formulas for
distributing Australian Government recurrent funding, and limited information is collected on these
methods. Smaller systems are known to distribute funding according to the SES score of their
member schools.
System authorities are able to withhold up to 2 per cent of Australian Government recurrent grants
for administrative purposes (DEEWR 2010). Non-government school systems and state and territory
Associations of Independent Schools are also able to retain a proportion of Australian Government
targeted funding for administrative purposes, although for most programs, the guidelines are silent
on the percentage which can be retained. Some systems withhold funds for centrally run activities
such as professional learning for principals and teachers. Other systems may not withhold funds from
programs, but charge member schools a levy from which administrative costs or other corporate
overheads are met.
2.1.5 Non-systemic independent schools
Setting aside non-systemic Catholic schools, some 836 independent schools are non-systemic and
have a direct funding relationship with the Australian Government (see Table 12). As discussed in
Chapter 1.1, there are 72 non-systemic Catholic schools including six schools that self-identify
as Catholic.
While Australian Government recurrent grants are paid directly to non-systemic schools, Associations
of Independent Schools manage and administer Australian Government targeted programs, and a
number of state and territory government programs that are available to all independent schools in
their jurisdiction. Together with Block Grant Authorities, Associations of Independent Schools also
manage and allocate Australian Government capital grants funding. It is not a requirement that every
non-systemic independent school becomes a member of the Association of Independent Schools in its
state, though it is usually seen as necessary to receive program funding.
Number of
schools
Primary
Table 12: Full-time equivalent enrolments in non-systemic schools, 2010
enrolments
Secondary
enrolments Total
Independent non-systemic schools 836 187,885 221,094 408,979
Catholic non-systemic schools 72 9,579 44,593 54,171
Total 908 197,464 265,687 463,151
iSource: DEEWR admnistrative data 2010.
2.1.6 Future opportunities
Partly through Australia’s consistent development and implementation of its partnership approach,
good progress has been made towards achieving greater national consistency in a number of areas
of schooling. A recent review undertaken by the OECD of evaluation and assessment in education
in Australia commended Australia’s national system for assessments (NAPLAN) and commitment
to transparency through school performance and financial reporting on the My School website.
The report noted that these measures provided a good structure to integrate accountability and
improvements (OECD 2011c). Australia’s measurement framework for national key performance
measures is also linked to the national goals, objectives and outcomes for schooling set out in the
Melbourne Declaration and the National Education Agreement. These act as solid reference points
47

for collaborative action, with many states and territories linking their strategic plans and goals to the
national goals (OECD 2011c).
The commitment to develop a national curriculum is another example that reflects a willingness of
the Australian Government, state and territory governments, and the non-government sector to work
together across geographical and school sectoral boundaries to deliver a high-quality education for all
young Australians. Working together makes it possible to harness collective expertise, with additional
benefits such as the reduction in the duplication of time, effort and resources.
However, funding for schooling is one area where efforts have been limited in working towards a
nationally consistent approach. There is a distinct lack of coherence in the way governments fund
schooling, particularly in relation to directing funding to schools based on student need and in a
consistent manner across states and territories and schooling sectors.
There is also an imbalance in terms of the funding responsibilities of the Australian Government and
state and territory governments in funding all schools and in supporting disadvantaged students.
A national approach to funding schooling must address this imbalance. It must also strike a balance
between setting funding policies at a national level while entrusting state and territory governments
and non-government school systems to make decisions about the allocation of funding based on local
needs and considerations.
Systems are often best placed to allocate resources in ways that are responsive to the specific needs
of schools and their communities, while achieving various efficiencies through economies of scale. In
allocating resources, however, they should be accountable for the funding decisions made, particularly
around the funding that is provided to support educationally disadvantaged students. Shared
funding responsibilities are likely to be best accepted by all parties when funding and accountability
arrangements are highly transparent.
A more coherent and transparent approach to funding
The range of programs and funding streams at both the Australian Government level for
non-government schools, and at the state and territory level for government and non-government
schools, are extensive. Funding is often provided in an uncoordinated way, and it is not always clear
that funding is provided by the right level of government, based on their ongoing ability to consistently
provide that funding.
Deloitte Access Economics (2011) found that governments tend to fund a number of policy areas
without regard to the practices of other funding partners. This particularly applies to funding that
is provided to support educationally disadvantaged students. It can be difficult for schools and the
broader community to determine the level of funding that is required to support these students from
both levels of government. In some states and territories this ‘funding’ will be in the form of additional
staff, in others it will be dollars a school can spend at its discretion. This difficulty leads to significant
challenges in measuring the impact of the funding in supporting improved educational outcomes for
students with various forms of disadvantage.
Current Australian Government and state and territory funding for non-government schools is a
patchwork of different funding methodologies and models that have accrued over a long period of
time. These arrangements are complex, confusing, opaque and inconsistent among jurisdictions, and
obscure educational goals and accountability.
Despite efforts under the Federal Financial Relations Framework to rationalise the number of
Australian Government SPPs for government schools into a single National Schools SPP, a large
48

number of National Partnerships and specific initiatives continue to operate outside the global funding
allocation. These programs are expensive to administer at both an Australian Government and state
and territory government level.
Funding can also be provided by governments in an ad hoc or informal way, such as the funding
provided by state and territory governments for non-government schools that is often not legislated or
subject to formal agreements. These practices also contribute to the opaqueness of funding.
There is a clear opportunity for all governments to build on the national partnerships and linkages that
are currently in place and seek to achieve greater coordination in the way schools are funded across all
schooling sectors. This could be achieved through a common funding framework, which would include
a schooling resource standard and strengthened governance and accountability arrangements. The
framework would provide greater transparency and coherence in how funding is allocated to systems
and schools, including greater clarity in the allocations provided for educationally disadvantaged
students.
Such a framework demands collaboration between the Australian Government, state and territory
governments and the non-government school sector. Chapter 4.2 provides further detail and
recommendations on a common funding framework for Australian schooling.
Finding 6
Australia lacks a logical, consistent and publicly transparent approach to funding schooling.
Shared responsibility in funding all sectors of schooling
In 2009, the Australian Government provided 74 per cent of all government net recurrent funding for
the Catholic sector and 73 per cent in the independent sector. In the government sector the Australian
Government provided only 15 per cent of the net recurrent funding with 85 per cent coming from the
states and territories (see Figure 16). State and territory governments carry the largest proportion of
the cost of funding government schools, including meeting the needs of a disproportionately larger
number of disadvantaged students, than those in the non-government sector (see Figure 17).
The National Partnerships in schooling have gone some way to correct this imbalance. Through the
Literacy and Numeracy, Low Socioeconomic Status School Communities, Closing the Gap in the
Northern Territory, and More Support for Students with Disabilities National Partnerships, substantial
Australian Government funding has been provided to certain schools to support disadvantaged
students or students not meeting minimum standards in literacy and numeracy. However, funding has
only extended to a set number of government schools.
Having focused primarily on supporting government schools, state and territory government
support for non-government schools has been uneven, informal and reliant on the commitment of
the Australian Government. Figure 18 not only shows that the contribution from state and territory
governments to recurrent income in non-government schools is uneven across jurisdictions, but
also highlights the imbalance in the Australian Government’s role in funding government and
non-government schools. It is time to look at how the funding responsibility for schooling can be
better balanced between both levels of government.
49

Figure 16: Australian Government and state government net recurrent funding as a
proportion of all government recurrent funding, by sector, 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
15
85
74
26
73
27
Per cent
Government Catholic Independent
Australian Government
State government
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
Figure 17: Australian Government and state government contributions to net recurrent
income per student in government schools, 2009
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
$’000 per student
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Australian Government
State government
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
50

It is clear that the Australian Government could play a greater role in funding government schools.
Greater support for government schools is particularly important given the need to lift the outcomes
of a greater number of students, the comparatively poor state of government school infrastructure,
and the higher concentrations of disadvantaged students in government schools. It also aligns with
the responsibility of the Australian Government under the National Education Agreement to support
students with particular needs, and the shared responsibility of governments to support improved
outcomes of Indigenous students.
While the panel considers there to be scope for the Australian Government to be more involved in the
funding of government schools, particularly in supporting disadvantaged students in these schools,
it also acknowledges the Australian Government’s funding obligations to the non-government school
sector. To maintain this commitment, increases of Australian Government funding to government
schools would either come at an additional cost, or a realignment of funding responsibilities, with the
states and territories playing a greater role in funding non-government schools.
The panel believes there are clear benefits to the Australian Government being more involved in the
funding of government schools and in state and territory governments becoming more involved in
funding non-government schools.
Figure 18: Australian Government and state government contributions to net recurrent
income per student in non-government schools, 2009
$’000 per student
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Catholic Independent
Australian Government
State government
Note: Catholic non-systemic schools included in independent schools.
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
While the government school sector supports higher numbers of educationally disadvantaged
students, the non-government sector also supports a share. Some groups of students, such as
students with disability, receive considerably less resources than their counterparts in the government
sector. State and territory governments could work to provide greater support for these students.
Greater involvement in funding non-government schools by the states and territories would also
allow these schools to be better integrated in the state or territory’s accountability and reporting
arrangements, facilitating better data collection at both a jurisdictional and a national level.
51

Finding 7
There is an imbalance in the provision of funding to government and non-government schools
by the Australian and state and territory governments. In particular, the Australian Government
could play a greater role in supporting state and territory governments to meet the needs of
disadvantaged students in both government and non-government schools.
Benefits of systems in allocating funding and collecting data on the impact of funding
The benefits of government and non-government school systems allocating or redistributing funding
to where it is most needed based on local knowledge of schools and communities, and in achieving
efficiencies through economies of scale, are well established. Larger systems, in particular, appear
to be well placed to apply a greater range of measures of need in distributing funding to individual
member schools in their funding formulas. They also have greater flexibility to provide additional
support to rural and remote schools, newly established schools, smaller schools, schools that may be
experiencing financial difficulty and schools with students with disability.
It is recommended that systems continue to play an important role in Australian schooling. The panel
also notes the valuable role that Associations of Independent Schools play in supporting independent
schools, including in administering some programs to non-systemic schools.
However, efforts must be made to improve the accountability of systems for their resourcing decisions.
While non-government systems and Associations of Independent Schools are accountable to
governments as they currently take a small percentage of public funding to support their operations,
limited information is provided on the methodologies for redistributing funding, or on the effectiveness
of programs such as the Australian Government’s targeted programs in improving outcomes. The
accountability that is provided to the Australian Government by non-government system authorities
and Associations of Independent Schools for these programs extends to the provision of a certificate
completed by a qualified accountant certifying that the school has spent the funds provided by the
Australian Government for the purpose they were granted with respect to the applicable program year.
Schools are also required to complete the annual census and financial questionnaire, though these
instruments do not collect data on the use or impact of funding in improving student outcomes.
Although there are agreed accountability and reporting structures in place for the states and
territories under the Federal Financial Relations Framework, these have been found to be inadequate
in terms of obtaining information on the impact of funding on the educational outcomes of students in
government schools. The Chair of the COAG Reform Council noted in an address to the NatStats 2010
Conference that ‘all COAG Reform Council reports contain recommendations to improve data quality
of the area being monitored, and call for refinement of the linkages between the data assessed and
the policy objectives sought’ (McClintock 2010). Further, the Reform Council found that all National
Agreements have examples of performance indicators which have no data or inadequate data to report
on progress (COAG Reform Council 2010c).
The OECD (2011c) has also reported that there are varied practices among the states and territories in
monitoring the performance of schools, especially in relation to the performance of low socioeconomic
status and Indigenous students. Understanding the relationships between the funding that is provided
to support these students and its impact on outcomes is critical in ensuring that funding is being used
to maximum effect and is informing future investment.
52

The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) in England (2010) asserts
the importance of performance data in acting as an early warning system to address issues, and lists
four components to a systemic school improvement strategy:
• setting the standard, which is done through inspection frameworks and local and national targets
• avoiding any school becoming inadequate, which depends on effective monitoring and
accountability
• quick turnaround of any school that becomes inadequate
• sustaining good and outstanding practice.
It is important that the same transparency and accountability arrangements apply to both government
and non-government systems. This includes greater transparency in how systems distribute and
allocate recurrent and capital funding to their member schools, and how funding is allocated to
address the needs of disadvantaged students.
Finding 8
In recognising the many benefits of government and non-government school systems, future
funding arrangements for schooling should continue to enable systems to make decisions around
the redistribution and allocation of resources at the local level, with enhanced accountability.
2.1.7 Conclusion
The partnership that has developed over recent years between the Australian Government and state
and territory governments in funding and supporting all schooling sectors provides a strong platform
in which to build and implement a new approach to funding schooling.
There is a clear need for funding for schooling to be better coordinated between the funding partners,
and to be delivered in a more coherent and transparent way. This could be achieved through jointly
agreed funding mechanisms involving common approaches to the allocation of funding to systems and
schools. There is also a need to think about a way in which governments can better share the funding
of schools across the sectors, as well as a need for greater accountability in how funding is used to
support student outcomes, so that the schooling system as a whole can better respond to the changing
demands of schooling.
Non-government school systems play an important role in the distribution of funding to schools,
and this role should be maintained with enhanced accountability for how the funding is distributed
and used.
53

54

2.2 Average Government School Recurrent Costs
and indexation
AGSRC has played an important role in the Australian Government’s funding policy for schooling for
some 18 years, particularly over the last decade where it has been used as both a funding benchmark
and an index. In 2011–12, around 80 per cent of the Australian Government’s school outlays for both
government and non-government schools are linked to AGSRC (The Treasury 2011a).
This chapter considers the role of AGSRC in funding for schooling. It sets out how the measure is
calculated, as well as some historical context for its development and use. The second part of the
chapter identifies and discusses issues about the appropriateness of AGSRC as a benchmark and
index. It discusses why the panel believes that AGSRC is no longer an appropriate funding mechanism.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of alternative approaches and recommends a way forward
involving the development of a new benchmark in the form of a schooling resource standard, as well
as new arrangements for indexing and periodically reviewing it. Chapter 4.2 explains how this new
schooling resource standard should be constructed, and Chapter 4.3 discusses the role it could play in
new funding arrangements.
2.2.1 Introduction of AGSRC
AGSRC was introduced in 1993, when it operated as an index. When the SES funding model was
introduced in 2001, AGSRC became both a funding benchmark and an index. At this time, the AGSRC
amounts were determined annually under legislation as the basis for general recurrent funding
of non-government schools. All states and territories, with the exception of South Australia and
the Australian Capital Territory, also link their funding of non-government schools to their own
jurisdiction’s average government school expenditure per student in some way (Keating et al. 2011).
Before the establishment of AGSRC, a Community Standard formed the basis for determining
Australian Government recurrent funding for government and non-government schools. The standard
represented the educational resources expected in the provision of schooling, such as staffing,
equipment and books, and also included the resources required to meet the special needs of some
students. Funding rates were adjusted annually in line with movements in a Schools Price Index, which
measured the movement in the cost of a basket of school-specific goods and services.
Switching to AGSRC was intended to provide a simpler, more realistic benchmark because it was
based on actual costs (or expenditure) rather than a ‘notional’ basket of services as was represented
by the Community Standard (Wilkinson et al. 2006). The source data for AGSRC was also viewed as
‘independent, reliable and transparent, whereas the composition of the Community Standard was
considered to be obscure and manipulable’ (DEETYA 1997, p. 49).
As a benchmark, AGSRC sets per student amounts, with separate amounts calculated for primary
and secondary school levels. A percentage of these amounts, based on the SES score of a school
under the SES funding model for non-government schools, is then used to determine Australian
Government recurrent funding for non-government schools (see Chapter 2.3). Payments to the states
and territories for government schools under the National Schools SPP are also adjusted for growth in
these per student amounts from year to year.
The AGSRC index reflects the annual rate of change in AGSRC (minus some components), and is used
specifically for adjusting Australian Government targeted funding for non-government schools.
55

2.2.2 The calculation of the AGSRC amounts
In setting revised AGSRC amounts each year, the Australian Government Education Minister
is required under section 36 of the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to consider changes in average
government school cost figures published by the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood
Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). These data are state based and are collected using an
agreed set of definitions to determine what expenditure is in or out of scope.
Guidelines for compiling and reporting data underpinning the AGSRC calculations are updated
regularly by MCEECDYA. These guidelines and the collection of data from audited accounts provide
some assurance that it is collected and reported consistently by the Australian Government and the
states and territories.
Broadly, the scope of recurrent expenditure includes in-school and out-of-school expenses for the
provision or administration of government schools as set out in Table 13. The major component is
employee-related expenses for teaching and non-teaching staff, which accounts for around
three-quarters of recurrent expenses excluding the notional user cost of capital. A number of items
are specifically excluded from the collection, notably funds raised by schools and payments to
non-government schools. Expenses on shared services are also excluded as are welfare payments
to individuals and expenditure on other levels of education, such as preschools and TAFE. Data on
investment costs, such as purchases of land and buildings, and plant and equipment, are collected and
reported separately to recurrent expenses.
Description




Redundancies •




iTable 13: Recurrent expense items in the MCEECDYA schools finance data collection
Item
Employee-related expenses
All salaries, wages and allowances and on-costs paid to in-scope staff.
Salary on-costs including superannuation, payroll tax, long service leave, workers
compensation insurance and fringe benefits tax.
Out-of-school expenses
Other expense items which do not fit the definition of in-school expenses such
as teachers based in a regional office and the costs of regional and central
administration.
Salaries and allowances and non-salary costs for education establishments other than
schools and ancillary education establishments.
Payments of accrued leave, other entitlements, superannuation and other special
incentives for redundant staff.
Other operating expenses
Student transport, cleaning, utilities, repairs and maintenance, minor stores, plant
and equipment, rentals and leases and other, e.g. telephone, computer lines, postage,
security.
Grants and subsidies Grants and subsidies paid directly to schools for any school education purpose.
Depreciation
The estimated expense resulting from the consumption (‘wear and tear’) of
non-current assets with limited useful lives in the process of producing schooling
services. States and territories have different methodologies for estimating
depreciation.
Notional user cost of capital
The opportunity cost of funds tied up in the capital used to deliver government
services, i.e. their potential value if employed in another purpose. It is calculated
at 8 per cent of the written down value of government school non-current physical
assets.
Note: From 2009 onwards the data is being compiled by ACARA.
Source: MCEECDYA 2011, unpublshed.
56

The AGSRC amounts are derived annually by the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations (DEEWR) from these MCEECDYA government school expense figures. They are
calculated on a derived cash basis, reflecting the way in which government accounts were prepared
at the time that they were first used for calculating AGSRC. However, when state and territory
governments moved to accrual accounting from 2000–01, there were some changes in the way certain
expenses are treated (see Table 14).
Timing of
payment is made.
Table 14: Some differences between cash and accrual accounting
Areas of
difference Cash accounting Accrual accounting
Recognition of
transactions
Transactions are recognised only
when cash flows into or out of an
entity. Consequently, non-cash
transactions (such as provisions
and revaluations) are excluded.
Records transactions when economic value changes rather than
when cash changes hands. Accrual accounting covers some
financial items of significant size which are not included in
cash-based statistics because they do not have an associated
cash flow.
transactions
Transactions are recorded in the
period in which they occurred.
Transactions are recorded in the period in which revenue is
earned or expenses incurred, regardless of whether a cash
Superannuation Records the flow of cash into and
out of superannuation funds.
Records the accruing superannuation expense whether the
liability is funded or unfunded, thus showing the true cost of
accruing superannuation liabilities.
Factors taken into account when calculating changes in the
stock of unfunded superannuation liability include the number
of employees, as well as assumptions relating to wages growth,
inflation and the expected rate of return on investment.
Depreciation Records capital expenditure in a
given year.
Records capital use (depreciation), defraying the cost of capital
investment across the life of the asset.
Source: The Treasury 2000a.
As cash-based expenditure is no longer reported, the AGSRC calculation requires some adjustments
to the available accrual-based figures to estimate cash expenditure so that AGSRC amounts can
be compiled in a way that is consistent with the methodology that has been followed since their
introduction. As depicted in Figure 19, the steps in the calculation of AGSRC amounts in 2011 were:
Step 1: From total government school recurrent expenses ($32.9 billion in 2009–10), two items
are set aside as they were not included in the original collection of data on government school
expenses prior to the introduction of accrual accounting. These are the notional user cost of capital
($4.8 billion) and depreciation ($1.2 billion).
Step 2: Out-of-school expenses ($1.6 billion) are apportioned across primary and secondary levels
of schooling according to enrolments at each level.
Step 3: Cash expenditure for primary and secondary schooling is estimated by applying the
year-on-year movement in accrual expenses to the previous year’s estimate of cash expenditure.
Step 4: Primary and secondary AGSRC amounts are calculated by dividing estimated cash
expenditure for each level by the respective full-time enrolments for the same period.
57

$1.2bn
$11.3bn
Out of school,
$1.6bn
In school: primary,
$14.0bn
$ 14.9 bn
$ 11.9 bn
$10.8 bn
Primary AGSRC amount:
$9,697 per student
2 3
4
4
Students = 901,794
set aside
1
Estimated primary
$13.4 bn
year’s estimated cash
accruals to cash
Out of school
primary and
secondary based
iiFigure 19: Derivation of AGSRC amounts 2011
Depreciation,
User cost of capital,
$4.8bn
In school: secondary,
Total government school recurrent expenses 2009–10 (accruals basis): $32.9 bn
Total primary expenses
Incl. out–of–school costs
Total secondary expenses
Incl. out–of–school costs
Estimated secondary
cash expenditure
Convert accrual
expenses to cash
Convert accrual
expenses to cash
Secondary AGSRC amount:
$11,945 per student
Students = 1,385,726
User cost of capital
and depreciation
cash expenditure
Apply change in accrual
expenses to previous
expenditure to complete
adjustment from
expenses
apportioned across
on enrolments
Source: MCEECDYA 2011, National Schools Statistcs Collection, unpublshed.
Step 3 is necessary to complete the adjustment of the accrual expense data to a notional cash base.
As cash expenditure is no longer reported, it has been estimated each year by applying the ratio of
accrual expenses in the current and previous years to the previous year’s estimate of cash expenditure.
These calculations are performed by DEEWR at the state and territory level for primary and secondary
schooling separately for each expense type (teacher expenses, administrative staff expenses,
redundancies, and other operating expenses). Primary and secondary estimated cash expenditures are
then aggregated to the national figures of $13.4 billion and $10.8 billion, before being divided by
full-time enrolments.
In effect, Step 3 removes from the AGSRC amounts some further cost elements which were not
included in the calculations before government school financial data was compiled on an accruals
basis. In particular, this affects superannuation, long service leave and payroll tax, all of which were
specifically excluded from the cash-based estimates of expenditure (MCEETYA 2001). However, as
these have all been included in the accrual expenses used to adjust the original cash base, increases
in these expenses since 1999–2000 have been passed on through the AGSRC amounts.
There is a time lag between the financial year for which the data are compiled and the calendar
year in which AGSRC amounts are applied to non-government schools. For example, the final 2011
AGSRC amounts were based on 2009–10 data, which became available in mid-2011. Initial 2011
recurrent funding for non-government schools was based on final AGSRC amounts from 2010, with the
additional funding reflecting final AGSRC amounts for 2011 paid in October 2011.
58

2.2.3 The calculation of the AGSRC index
The AGSRC index is also calculated using the same MCEECDYA data, but with some additional steps.
As set out in Figure 20, these commence from the second last point of the AGSRC amounts calculation
with total estimated cash expenditure of $24.2 billion in 2009–10. Specific steps involve:
Step 1: The Australian Government grants to government schools, including funding under the
National Schools SPP and National Partnerships, and the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance)
Act 2000 program are all excluded.
Step 2: The remaining expenditure ($20 687 million in 2009–10) is divided by total government
school enrolments for the same period to arrive at a per capita state or territory government
expenditure figure.
Step 3: The AGSRC index is the percentage change in the per capita state or territory government
expenditure between two financial years (4.9 per cent in 2011 based on the change from 2008–09 to
2009–10).
National Partnerships
Schools SPP
1
2 3
primary and
students
2,287,520
per student
of $9,044,
$8,623 in
2008–09
2008–09 to
2009–10 =
Additional
iiFigure 20: Derivation of the AGSRC index 2011
Remainder
$20,687 m
$179 m
Redundancies
$17 m
IETA
$39 m
$3,287 m
Total government school estimated cash expenditure 2009–10 : $24,209 m
Total full-time
secondary
Expenditure
compared to
Change from
4.9 per cent
exclusions
Source: MCEECDYA 2011, National Schools Statistcs Collection, unpublshed.
The effect of excluding Australian Government funding for government schools from the calculation of
the AGSRC index makes it a measure of change in total expenditure by state and territory governments
only. The rationale for this is to avoid the compounding effect of further supplementing for initial and
indexed increases. However, Australian Government funding for government schools is included in the
calculation of the AGSRC amounts as their purpose is to identify an average level of expenditure per
student, rather than to supplement for changes in those levels. Redundancies are also excluded as
they can be affected by one-off events.
59

2.2.4 Issues with AGSRC
A number of issues relating to the operation and impact of AGSRC arose during the course of the
review, including through representations to the review. These focused on the:
• reasons for the growth in AGSRC
• educational rationale for using AGSRC
• equity and parity of the resourcing outcomes AGSRC leads to
• use of AGSRC as both a benchmark and index
• complexity of how AGSRC is calculated and the scope of costs it includes.
Reasons for growth
The growth in the AGSRC per student amounts has been primarily driven by teacher-related expenses,
which contributed around 60 per cent of the increase to both the primary and secondary AGSRC
amounts between 2001 and 2011 (see Figure 21).
2001 AGSRC
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Primary
7,101
5,378
2,808
2,640
789
845
1,247
833
2011 Primary AGSRC $9,697
$11,945
Components of
Starting point
AGSRC in 2001
$ per student
iiiFigure 21: Components of change in AGSRC from 2001 to 2011 by level of schooling
Teacher expenses Admin staff expenses Other operating expenses
Secondary
2011 Secondary AGSRC
increase
Note: Redundancies are included in other operating expenses.
Source: DEEWR admnistrative calculations based on MCEECDYA 2011, National Schools Statstcs Collection, unpublished.
Administrative staff expenses contributed a smaller component of the change (20 per cent for primary
and 16 per cent for secondary), but grew faster at 111 per cent and 89 per cent respectively. As
indicated by their declining share in overall expenditure, other operating expenses contributed least to
growth in the AGSRC amounts.
Most of the changes in teacher and administrative staff expenses per student are attributable to wages
growth and changes in student and staff ratios (see Figure 22). For this purpose, per student amounts
have been combined for primary and secondary schooling as data on changing wage costs are not
separately available by level of schooling.
60

Figure 22: Components of change in teacher and administrative staff expenses
per student from 1999–2000 to 2009–10
$ per student
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Teacher expenses
334
537 per student
increased by $2,718
1,847
Admin staff
expenses increased
by $824 349
65
per student
410
Teacher expenses per student Admin staff expenses per studentWages growth
Student–staff ratios
Unexplained
Note: Redundancies are included in other operating expenses.
Source: DEEWR administrative calculations based on MCEECDYA 2011, National Schools Statistics Collection, unpublished.
As shown in Figure 22, wages growth accounted for the largest part of the increase in teacher
expenses per student (68 per cent of the increase). The growth reflected the 51 per cent increase in
the Labour Price Index for public sector education and training. Twelve per cent of the increase also
resulted from a fall in the aggregate student–teacher ratio from 14.9:1 in 1999–2000 to 14.0:1 in
2009–10. However, one-fifth of the increase in teacher expenses per student remains unexplained.
For administrative staff expenses, wages growth again accounted for a significant part of the growth
in expenses (50 per cent), but a much larger drop in student to non-teaching staff ratios from 53:1 in
1999–2000 to 38:1 in 2009–10 also accounted for 42 per cent of the increase.
The unexplained components of Figure 22 may be due to a range of factors, including policy decisions
by both levels of government. The potential for these to have an impact on AGSRC is demonstrated by
the larger than usual increase in the primary AGSRC amounts in 2010 and 2011, which increased by
8.2 per cent and 6.9 per cent respectively. The secondary amount increased by 7 per cent in 2010 and
4.9 per cent in 2011. This was in part due to the flow-on effects of the funding arrangements under
the National Schools SPP, where the per student primary amount increased to 10 per cent of AGSRC.
Other factors include extra funding to the state and territory governments for the Digital Education
Revolution National Partnership payments and on-costs.
Educational rationale
In essence, AGSRC is a measure of historical expenditure levels in average government schools.
As such, it is a backward-looking approach to resourcing schools, based on past levels of inputs
from governments. It lacks an explicit educational rationale related to the Australian community’s
current expectations of and needs from schooling, as articulated in the Melbourne Declaration. It
does not help to guide decisions about the overall level of investment required by the community
and governments at all levels to meet those expectations, nor provide assurance that our significant
investment is effective and efficient.
61

Consequently, AGSRC provides little leverage in addressing the significant educational challenges
Australia faces, as set out in Chapter 1.2. Retaining a funding mechanism like AGSRC as the
centrepiece of funding for schooling will not assist Australia in meeting these challenges.
In the panel’s view, seriously addressing Australia’s schooling challenges will require an intense and
sustained national effort over an extended period of years. Public funding is one of the key levers that
can be used to focus this effort on achieving the desired high-level outcomes for schooling related
to improved performance and equity. In particular, a forward-looking benchmark is needed with
an explicit link to the cost of providing students with the opportunity to achieve nationally agreed
outcomes, as determined by governments from time to time.
It is also critical that a new benchmark is dynamic and responsive to changes over time in
performance and the delivery of schooling. The arrangements, including a new benchmark, should
be reviewed regularly to ensure that they are based on sound evidence and data so that the link is
maintained between desired educational outcomes and funding. The institutional structures necessary
to support this are described in Chapter 4.4.
Finding 9
The Average Government School Recurrent Costs measure lacks a convincing educational
rationale. Meeting Australia’s educational challenges requires a funding benchmark that is linked
to educational outcomes and is able to respond to changes over time in performance and the
delivery of schooling.
Resource equity and parity
While AGSRC is based on average expenditure in government schools, there are schools with vastly
different characteristics and student cohorts across all schooling sectors and states and territories.
As Chapter 3.2 outlines, these differences are due to factors such as school location or size, or types
of disadvantage faced by the students. An average measure like AGSRC does not reflect the cost of
meeting the different needs of schools, systems or jurisdictions.
In representations to the review, divergent views were expressed about the ability of AGSRC to allocate
funding based on need (equity), and the balance of total investment across the government and
non-government sectors (parity).
Many organisations associated with the government sector argued that average government school
costs are inflated by the higher proportion of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Indigenous
students, students with disability and remote area students, and that non-government schools receive
a portion of this higher expenditure while having a lower ratio of such students. AGSRC was also said
to be affected by the diseconomies experienced by state and territory systems in meeting their legal
obligations to cater for all students when a significant proportion of government schools have become
smaller and less efficient as a result of enrolment shifts across regions and schooling sectors.
On the other hand, organisations representing the non-government sector argued strongly that AGSRC
was a necessary and appropriate mechanism. They argued that the number of students requiring
additional support in non-government schools is increasing, and further, that the indexation applies
only to income from the Australian Government targeted programs, which is a small portion of the
total income of most non-government schools. It was also argued that quality and resourcing levels
in government schools are cost drivers for non-government schools and that they needed to be able
to respond to changing community expectations of standards and quality of schooling. Joint labour
markets and common wage pressures for teachers across sectors were cited as constraints on using
cost measures that are unrelated to changes in government school costs.
62

The panel noted that both lines of argument had merit. The data on student profiles in the schooling
sectors set out in Chapter 1.1 show that the greater proportion of students facing disadvantage attend
government schools. However, the non-government sector also educates a share of disadvantaged
students, including students from remote or very disadvantaged communities, and consequently
experiences significant resource and other challenges.
The panel concluded that a sectoral focus in considering equity would be unproductive. Rather, as far
as practicable, resourcing arrangements should reflect the nature of the educational challenges faced
by a system or a school given its characteristics and student population, regardless of whether it is in
the government or non-government sector.
As it represents an average level of resources, AGSRC is unable to satisfy this principle. What is
needed is a more sophisticated resource benchmark that can reflect the full spectrum of cost
levels from the lesser cost associated with a school experiencing minimal disadvantage (for
example, a large school in a metropolitan area with minimal levels of educational disadvantage
due to student background) through to a school with compounded or concentrated disadvantage
or costs (for example, a small school in a very remote location with high levels of students from
disadvantaged backgrounds).
In reaching this conclusion the panel acknowledged that the issue of parity across sectors, in
particular between the government and Catholic sectors, is important and has had a long history.
Before AGSRC was introduced, Australian Government funding for schooling was based on other
measures of government school costs. These measures sought to address concerns at the time about
large resource gaps across the schooling sectors, as highlighted in the Karmel Report (Wilkinson
et al. 2006). As illustrated in Figure 23, the gap between average Catholic and government school
expenditure from all sources per student has decreased over time.
Figure 23: Recurrent expenditure per student in Catholic schools as a percentage of
government schools, selected years from 1974 to 2008
Per cent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1974 1977 1981 1986 1995 1999 2003 2008
Catholic – All schools
Catholic – Primary
Catholic – Secondary
Sources: 1. Expenditure for 1974, 1977 and 1981—Quality of Education Review Committee 1985, Tables 2.2, 2.3 and 3.11.
2. Expenditure for 1986—DEET 1987, Table 4.8; and DEET 1989, Table 4.5.
3. Expenditure for 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2008—MCEETYA (various years), National report on schooling in Australia, statistical
appendix, table numbers differ between reports.
63

The panel believes that systems and schools should be resourced on an equal per student basis if they
have the same characteristics or serve student populations with similar levels of need. A per student
amount should remain the major component of a new resource benchmark and this should provide a
strong common level of resourcing for all schools. The benchmark should be topped up by a significant
element of resourcing based on need, which would give parents and the community the assurance that
students and schools are resourced appropriately regardless of sector.
Finding 10
Public funding arrangements need to reflect the nature of the educational challenges faced by a
system or school given its characteristics and student population, regardless of whether it is in
the government or non-government sector.
Benchmark and index
At present AGSRC operates as both a funding benchmark and an index. As a benchmark, it
acts primarily to maintain a level of resource parity over time between Australian Government
funding of all schooling sectors. As an index, it reflects increases in both the cost and quality of
educational resources.
A range of views about this dual purpose of AGSRC were expressed in the review’s consultations.
Supporters of the continued use of AGSRC argued that it was essential to have both a benchmark and
an index that could maintain a degree of parity over the long term between resourcing for government
and non-government schools. They also argued that it was essential for these to include both price
and quality components, as salaries and conditions in government schools are significant cost drivers
for non-government schools, which draw teachers and other staff from a common labour market.
Others maintained that AGSRC overcompensates schools and passes on real increases over and above
the effects of inflation without regard to the specific needs of the schools receiving those increases.
Pointing to comparisons with measures of inflation that are not school specific led to some questioning
whether AGSRC mirrors efficient growth in costs. As shown in Figure 24, between 2001 and 2011
(based on 1999–2000 and 2009–10 financial year data respectively) the primary and secondary AGSRC
amounts increased by 80 per cent and 68 per cent. This was well ahead of the Consumer Price Index
(up 37 per cent) and the Labour Price Index for education and training (up 50 per cent).
However, such comparisons are not valid as AGSRC is not just a measure of cost or price increases,
but a benchmark as well. As such it incorporates changes in the level of spending per student that
flow from improvements in the quality as well as those which flow from higher prices for inputs. It is
not unusual for cost increases in labour-intensive service industries such as schooling to outstrip the
rate of inflation in the economy as a whole (Valadkhani, Worthington and Layton 2005), particularly in
sectors that are heavily government funded and regulated.
64

Figure 24: Cumulative change in AGSRC compared to Consumer Price Index and
Labour Price Index, 1999–2000 to 2009–10
Index 1999–2000= 100
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
1999–2000 2001–02 2003–04 2005–06 2007–08 2009–10
Primary AGSRC Secondary AGSRC AGSRC index
CPI LPI – education & training
Note: The LPI – education and training relates to hourly rates of pay (excluding bonuses) for the public sector drawn from ABS (various
years), Labour Price Index, 6345.0 (Table 5a).
Sources: DEEWR administrative data 2011; ABS 1999 to 2010a, Consumer Price Index, Australia, cat. no. 6401.0; ABS 1999 to 2010b, Labour
Price Index, Australia, cat. no. 6345.0.
This illustrates one of the potential advantages in terms of greater clarity and transparency of purpose
in separating the setting of a benchmark from how it is indexed over time. The combination of these
two roles in AGSRC contributes to confusion and misunderstanding about how school funding is
determined and whether this is effective and efficient.
The issues related to setting a benchmark and indexing it can also be different more generally. The key
issues in setting a benchmark relate to:
• the purpose of the benchmark, whether it is to drive resource inputs only or also educational
outcomes
• its structure, and its ability to differentiate by need
• the scope of costs it should cover
• the underlying assumptions about school effectiveness in deploying resources to educational ends
• the data and methodology required to determine the benchmark.
In the panel’s view it is clear that a benchmark, particularly one geared towards improving educational
performance, should include resourcing increases over time to reflect broad increases in ‘quality’
in the sense of raising educational aspirations and reflecting changes in modes of delivery through
classrooms and the use of ICT. This would occur as a result of regular, evidence-based review of
the benchmark, allowing the currency and appropriateness of it to be tested against robust cost and
performance data. By its nature, such a process is intensive in terms of resources, data, and time and
cannot occur every year.
65

Annual indexation of a benchmark ensures that it remains current between such periodic reviews
despite changes in actual or forecast prices or costs. The key issues in determining an appropriate
index to adjust a benchmark include:
• the availability of a suitable index or set of cost data which reflects efficient but realistic changes in
costs over time
• the timeliness and robustness of this index, as well as the simplicity of its application
• certainty for schools and governments about the likely funding implications in the medium term.
Within a framework that has a coherent approach to setting a funding benchmark and a legislated
requirement for regular, independent review of that benchmark, there is a case for a separate and
simpler approach to indexation focused on maintaining the real value of that benchmark between
reviews. The panel’s recommendations set out in this report would lead to a significant increase in
overall funding for schooling in all sectors. Therefore, separating the benchmark from indexation
would not lead to reduced funding. Rather, it would provide a more transparent, robust and credible
benchmark with a stronger educational rationale and objective.
Finding 11
Within the new funding framework there needs to be an explicit difference between setting a
standard for the resourcing of schooling and indexation for changes in the costs related to the
delivery of that standard.
Complexity and scope
It is clear that the calculation of AGSRC and the index are complex and not easily understood. This
has been accentuated by the technical nature of some of the accounting concepts, the shift from cash
to accrual accounting and the practical adjustments necessary to reflect what it is feasible to collect
and measure annually from time to time. The picture is also complicated by different measures of
government school expenditure due to different inclusions and exclusions in figures published by
MCEECDYA in its National report on schooling in Australia and the Productivity Commission in its Report
on government services. The rationale for the treatment of different types of costs has also not been
transparent and does not accord with contemporary practice.
In particular, there are a number of significant ongoing costs in operating schools which are currently
not included in AGSRC for various reasons, but which should be included in a measure which is
intended to guide the allocation of public resources across government and non-government schools.
Superannuation and long service leave are two examples of such costs. These came to be excluded
from the original cash-based AGSRC amounts because, at the time, unfunded superannuation
liabilities were not properly accounted for under cash accounting rules in the government sector. There
were also inconsistencies between the states and territories in their treatment of superannuation
costs and robust data was lacking (Coopers and Lybrand 1994). However, with the shift to accrual
accounting better information is now available on government school superannuation and this is
included in the financial data collected by ACARA for the My School website.
More complex issues arise in connection with capital-related costs such as depreciation of plant and
equipment, and infrastructure and the user cost of capital. AGSRC excludes both these, as well as the
initial capital investment costs of purchasing or acquiring assets.
Depreciation was excluded from AGSRC because it was not a cash payment but an accrual expense
and also because AGSRC excluded capital costs since these were funded separately to recurrent
funding (Coopers and Lybrand 1994). Limitations on the valuation of assets made by states and
66

differences in depreciation methods also made it difficult to include this in practice. However, AGSRC
does include repairs and maintenance for existing buildings and equipment.
The notional user cost of capital was excluded from AGSRC because it was a capital-related charge
and a notional cost only that had no parallel in the non-government sector. A methodology to estimate
it was not agreed and reported in state government expenses until 2001–02, after the calculation of the
AGSRC amounts had commenced.
Ongoing issues in the treatment of these costs arise for several reasons. Firstly, it can be difficult to
distinguish capital from recurrent costs in some cases and there is a need to avoid creating perverse
incentives, such as between purchase and lease of assets, and to recognise that capital costs are
‘lumpy’ by nature over time and among schools. Secondly, there continue to be different accounting
practices across schools and sectors. Depreciation and the user cost of capital were specifically
excluded from the ACARA financial data collection for the My School website for these reasons.
As outlined in Chapter 4.3, the panel proposes that funding arrangements be retained for supporting
capital expenditure in government and non-government schools separate to recurrent funding,
covering both depreciation and refurbishment of the existing stock as well as construction of new
schools and places. Therefore, it would be appropriate to continue to exclude depreciation, the
user cost of capital and capital expenditure on new schools from a recurrent funding benchmark
or standard.
Payroll tax was excluded from AGSRC on the basis that, for government schools, it is a state and
territory revenue-raising charge and not an underlying cost (Coopers and Lybrand 1994).
Non-government schools are exempt from payroll tax and it has been excluded from the My School
financial data. Given this, it should continue to be excluded from any measure which is intended to
guide the allocation of Australian Government recurrent funding.
Finding 12
For the purposes of developing future recurrent funding arrangements, it would be appropriate
to continue to exclude the user cost of capital, depreciation, capital expenditure and payroll tax.
Superannuation and long service leave expenses should be included.
2.2.5 Possible alternatives to the current AGSRC
Submissions to the review expressed a wide variety of views as to whether AGSRC should be retained,
modified or replaced in future funding arrangements.
Support for retaining AGSRC, while recognising some of its limitations, was expressed by a number of
non-government sector representative groups, which argued that it is the most appropriate measure
currently available for adjusting funding to reflect increasing costs in schooling. Other submissions
also supported continued indexation by AGSRC or movements in educational costs rather than an
unrelated general index of price increases, or expressed a desire for certainty of funding. Some
submissions supported modifying AGSRC in various ways to redefine it and address the anomalies
discussed in this chapter.
There was also support in some submissions for replacing AGSRC with a national education resource
standard based on inputs for government school expenditure. It was suggested that this might reflect
state and territory cost differences and school-level factors (for example, primary and secondary) and
could be net of expenditure on some groups of students with particularly high support costs, such as
some students with disability.
67

Other submissions sought replacement of AGSRC with a benchmark based on the investment
it will take for students to achieve the outcomes of the Melbourne Declaration and building in
some differentiation for need through a base amount plus other adjustments for disadvantage or
higher costs for some students and schools. Another approach suggested was a national target
teaching resource standard with indexation based on either an education wage index or a teachers’
salaries index.
The panel considered two broad approaches in its deliberations:
• a modified AGSRC, which would include some costs which are currently excluded and also the
removal of costs associated with students with disability, which would then be funded separately
• a new schooling resource standard, which would be set having regard to the outcomes to be
achieved rather than current expenditure levels, and which would incorporate adjustments for a
wider range of students and schools in need.
The panel considered these approaches having regard to its terms of reference to examine the best
funding mechanism to ensure that all students have access to a high standard of education. The
funding mechanism will need to deliver financial efficiency and sustainability, as well as the funding
principles set out in Chapter 4.1.
Modified AGSRC
The panel concluded that AGSRC could be modified or improved in two ways if retained as a combined
benchmark and index.
The first would be to adjust the scope of the expenses which it includes and excludes to address
some of the historical anomalies which have arisen in its derivation since 1993 and which are no
longer appropriate. This would mean including superannuation and long service leave expenses, but
continuing to exclude depreciation and the user cost of capital. Payroll tax should also be excluded
as non-government schools are exempt from paying the tax, and it is an internal state transfer for
government schools. These changes would turn AGSRC from an anachronistic cash-based benchmark
to one which is much closer to a contemporary, accrual-based benchmark, as well as simplifying the
calculations and making them more transparent and easily understood.
The second modification would be to remove from AGSRC and fund separately the costs associated with
students with disability. Research commissioned for the review by the Australian Council for Educational
Research estimated that total identifiable expenditure on students with disabilities in schools in 2007–08
was of the order of $2.8 billion, of which most is expended in the government sector (Rorris et al. 2011).
However, there were a number of omissions and uncertainties around this estimate and further work
would be required to develop a more precise estimate. Excluding these funds from AGSRC would address
an issue about the inclusion of the highest cost students affecting the average base funding. Funding
these students separately would also allow funds to be targeted more directly to schools with larger
numbers of students with disability needing higher levels of support.
However, such a modified AGSRC would still not meet some of the key principles for an effective
arrangement for funding contemporary Australian schooling. In particular, it would not:
• focus public funding and the energies of the schooling system on outcomes to reverse the slippage
in performance against neighbouring and other countries
• address resourcing equity sufficiently so that all schools are resourced appropriately given their
characteristics and student population, regardless of sector
• be transparent, clear and subject to regular and independent review to ensure that it is based on
sound evidence and data.
68

New schooling resource standard
The panel concluded that a better way to proceed would be to replace AGSRC with a new set of
arrangements, involving a separate benchmark and index. The new benchmark will take the form of a
schooling resource standard, with the following characteristics:
• The standard would be explicitly linked to expected educational outcomes, rather than historical
levels of resource inputs, and geared to providing all students with the opportunity to meet agreed
national educational outcomes. The standard would be structured to reflect the complexity and
variations in cost of service delivery within systems and individual schools with differing needs and
characteristics in a way that is not possible with an average measure like AGSRC. This would be
achieved by including a primary and secondary per student level of resourcing with loadings for
students and schools facing certain additional costs due to educational disadvantage arising from,
for example, low socioeconomic background or Indigeneity, or the remoteness or limited size of
a school.
• Recognising that resources from all sources (government and non-government) contribute towards
educational outcomes, the schooling resource standard would be based on the total resources
deployed to achieve agreed educational outcomes. The standard would also reflect the efficient
costs of all schools meeting agreed national performance benchmarks, not just those in the
government sector.
• The schooling resource standard would be subject to regular, independent and expert periodic
review, with indexation between reviews based on changes in the cost of a schooling-specific
basket of labour and other costs. An institutional and legislative framework would ensure that
these processes operated in a transparent and rigorous manner that enables the standard to adapt
to changes in educational standards and aspirations over time.
This would be a more equitable, coherent and transparent means of distributing resources between
schools or school systems across all sectors taking into account the level and complexity of service
delivery and the efficient costs of educationally effective schools in all sectors. The panel’s model
for a new schooling resource standard is set out in greater detail in Chapter 4.2, with governance
arrangements detailed in Chapter 4.4.




Recommendation 1
The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the non-government
sector, should develop and implement a schooling resource standard as the basis for general
recurrent funding of government and non-government schools. The schooling resource
standard should:
reflect the agreed outcomes and goals of schooling and enable them to be achieved and
improved over time
be transparent, defensible and equitable and be capable of application across all sectors
and systems
include amounts per primary and secondary student, with adjustments for students and
schools facing certain additional costs
complement and help drive broader schooling reform to improve Australia’s overall
performance and reduce inequity of outcomes.
69

2.2.6 Conclusion
The panel has concluded that as a funding benchmark and index, AGSRC does not meet some key
funding principles required for funding Australian schooling into the future. A funding benchmark and
the method for updating it are a critical part of the architecture of the proposed new school funding
arrangements. They must be considered against public policy principles appropriate to the historical
and current situation of Australian schooling, including Australia’s key challenges of improving
performance at all levels of achievement and improving the equity of that performance. The panel
considers a schooling resource standard is the most appropriate benchmark to meet these principles.
Australia is well positioned to make the shift to a new way of resourcing schools, but the process for
developing a standard ready for implementation in 2014 will require concerted effort, collaboration and
consultation with jurisdictions, sectors and schools.
70

2.3 Socioeconomic Status funding model
This chapter examines the Australian Government’s SES funding model for non-government schools.
It builds on the discussion of Australian Government and state and territory responsibilities for funding
non-government schools in Chapter 2.1, and describes how the SES funding model works, including
Funding Maintenance and Funding Guarantee arrangements.
The second part of the chapter examines a number of issues about the SES funding model, including
the concept of need that should apply to public funding for non-government schools and the
appropriateness of socioeconomic status as a measure of a school’s relative need for public funding.
The degree to which exceptions to standard funding levels are made through Funding Maintenance is
discussed, as well as the rationale for a minimum public contribution towards the funding of all
non-government schools. Chapter 4.3 builds on this discussion and explains how non-government
schools would be funded under the panel’s new funding model.
2.3.1 How the SES model works
The largest component of Australian Government funding for non-government schools is provided
through recurrent grants, calculated under the SES funding model. In 2011–12, the Recurrent Grants
Program represented some 86 per cent of all Australian Government funding for non-government
schools. The level of recurrent grants allocated for a school is determined by:
• the number of enrolments at primary and secondary levels
• the AGSRC primary and secondary amounts as updated from year to year (see Chapter 2.2)
• the funding rate of the school based on its SES score, which is derived from the average
socioeconomic characteristics of the census Collection Districts in which its students live.
The SES funding model came into operation in 2001 and replaced the Education Resources Index
(ERI) as the method for working out the relative funding needs of non-government schools. Under
the ERI, the level of funding which a school could receive was determined by the actual resources
available to it.
Funding rates
The Australian Government provides recurrent grants on a per student basis over a sliding scale of
46 categories, with each step linked to a school’s SES score (see Figure 25). Funding rates range from
70 per cent of primary and secondary AGSRC amounts for schools with an SES score of 85 and below
to 13.7 per cent for schools whose SES score is 130 and above. Schools with SES scores between
85 and 130 are funded on a continuum as illustrated. The minimum entitlement of 13.7 per cent of
AGSRC was set to be equivalent to the minimum rate for category 1 schools under the previous
ERI model.
71

Figure 25: Funding levels under the SES model
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
of AGSRC amounts)
Maximum funding rate 70%
Minimum funding
rate 13.7%
SES funding level (per cent
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
School SES score
A non-government school may receive maximum SES funding without regard to an SES score if it is a:
• special school
• special assistance school
• majority Indigenous student school (schools with 80 per cent or more Indigenous enrolments or
very remote schools with 50 per cent or more Indigenous enrolments).
Eligible non-government schools receive a remoteness loading in addition to their recurrent grant
funding for students studying at eligible locations. Non-government schools or campuses classified as
‘moderately accessible’, ‘remote’, or ‘very remote’ receive an additional 5 per cent, 10 per cent or
20 per cent respectively of the funding entitlement associated with their SES score.
Assessment of need
The SES funding model links student residential addresses to ABS national census data at the
Collection District level to obtain a socioeconomic profile of the school community and measure its
capacity to support the school. There were around 38 700 ABS census Collection Districts at the time
of the 2006 census. The Collection District is currently the smallest spatial unit in the Australian
Standard Geographical Classification. In urban areas, Collection Districts average about 220 dwellings.
In rural areas, the number of dwellings reduces as population densities decrease.
An SES dimension score is calculated for four dimensions of each Collection District—occupation,
education, household income, and family income for those households with dependent children
(see Figure 26). These dimensions were selected to reflect the intention of the SES mechanism to
measure the capacity of the school community to support its school. This process means that schools
funded on their SES score and which draw students from areas of predominantly high socioeconomic
status receive lower levels of funding than schools which draw students from areas of average or low
socioeconomic status.
72


• 200–250 households each
Dimension







$130,000 per annum
1/6th
1/6th
Figure 26: Calculation of school SES scores
ABS 5-yearly
national census data
38,700 census Collection
Districts (CDs) in 2006
Students’ residential addresses
collected by schools without
names and provided to DEEWR –
over 1.1 million addresses
Student residential addresses
geocoded to census CDs
Calculation of CD SES scores on 4 dimensions
Examples of variables included
1. Education
Percentage of the population with degree,
trade or other qualifications
Rates of leaving school at Year 9 and
participation in tertiary education
2. Occupation
Proportion of the population who are
employed at different levels of the ABS
classification of occupations
Unemployment rate
3. Household income
Percentage of households with incomes
below $52,000 per annum
Percentage of households with incomes
above $117,000 per annum
4. Family income
Percentage of households with incomes
below $52,000 per annum or above
School SES scores calculated
Average of CD SES scores
Weighting
1. Education 1/3rd
2. Occupation 1/3rd
3. Household income
4. Family income
DEEWR collects de-identified student addresses from each school, which are geocoded to Collection
Districts. School SES scores are then derived from the average score for each of the four dimensions
for the students attending the school, weighted as shown in Figure 26. The original school SES scores
were calculated for the 2001 to 2004 funding quadrennium, based on 1996 census data. The current
school SES scores are based on 2006 census data. The next update for 2011 census data, to be
undertaken by DEEWR, will occur ahead of the commencement of the next funding period in 2014.
The SES score of a school applies for the quadrennium, unless the school or school system
considers that the SES score has not been determined correctly, does not reflect the socioeconomic
circumstances of the school’s community, or is no longer accurate because of a significant change in
the school’s circumstances. In these cases, there are review and appeals processes in place.
Funding Maintenance and Funding Guarantee
In 2011, 60 per cent of non-government schools were funded according to their SES score. The
remaining schools were either Funding Maintained or Funding Guaranteed.
When the SES funding model commenced in 2001, it applied only to independent schools. At this
time, Catholic systemic schools continued to be funded under the previous ERI arrangements at a
system funding level. Those independent schools which would have received less funding under the
73

SES model became ‘Funding Maintained’, in that they retained their 2000 per student level of funding,
indexed each year by AGSRC, until their SES score was recalculated for the following quadrennium.
These schools moved to being funded on their SES score only if the new score resulted in increased
overall funding for the school.
When Catholic systemic schools joined the SES funding system from 2005 the proportion of schools
that were Funding Maintained increased. In 2011, there were 890 Funding Maintained Catholic
systemic schools (54 per cent of all Catholic systemic schools), 148 Funding Maintained independent
schools (14 per cent of all independent schools) and 37 Funding Maintained non-systemically funded
Catholic schools (62 per cent of all non-systemically funded Catholic schools). As Funding Maintained
schools have their previous funding level fully indexed to changes in AGSRC, they are not expected to
decline significantly in number over time (see Figure 27).
Any new independent school (from 2001) or Catholic systemic school (from 2005) is funded on
their SES score. Funding Maintenance was estimated to provide funding of $615 million in 2010, of
which almost $492 million was paid to Catholic systems and $123 million to independent schools.
This represented 13 per cent of the general recurrent funding for all Catholic schools in that
year, or an average of $747 per student, and 4.9 per cent of the general recurrent funding for all
independent schools.
Figure 27: Estimated number of non-government schools by funding status,
2009 to 2012
Number of schools
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1,410
1,075
210
32 5 0 0
1,075 1,075 1,075 1,075
1,641 1,646 1,6461,614
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
SES score
Funding Maintained
Funding Guaranteed
Source: DEEWR administrative data.
‘Funding Guaranteed’ schools are SES-funded schools whose SES scores increase between
quadrenniums, resulting in reduced per student funding entitlements. These schools have their per
student dollar amounts frozen in dollar terms until the value of their entitlements based on their new
SES score (indexed by AGSRC) is equal to, or greater than, their previous entitlements. They then move
to being funded on their new SES score. The Funding Guarantee works as a transitional arrangement
and most of the current Funding Guaranteed schools will move to their actual SES score funding
before the end of the quadrennium (see Figure 27). The Funding Guarantee is estimated to provide
funding of $11.8 million over the current 2009–2013 funding period to affected systems and schools.
74

2.3.2 The concept of need
The principle of needs-based funding for non-government schools is generally accepted within the
Australian community. Debate has largely focused on what constitutes need, how it is measured,
and what quantum of funds should be provided (Wilkinson et al. 2006). However, need is not the sole
consideration in deciding the allocation of funding for schooling. For many decades, governments have
also provided a measure of assistance for students in all registered schools.
Submissions to this review accepted that government recurrent funding to non-government schools
should reflect ‘need’. There are different ways in which need can be conceptualised and defined.
Figure 28 depicts two distinct senses of need.
disadvantage
Highdisadvantage
Figure 28: Two dimensions of need in funding for schooling
Resource requirements
Funding requirements
Little
Largely public Largely private
Lower cost schools:
limited private revenue raising
Higher cost schools:
limited private revenue raising
Higher cost schools:
mostly privately funded
Lower cost schools:
mostly privately funded
The horizontal axis—Funding requirements—which is the focus of this chapter, refers to the extent to
which a non-government school or system requires public funding to provide the expected standard
of education to its students because it is unable to fund this through fees and charges to parents and
other private sources.
The vertical axis—Resource requirements—is the need for resources given different levels and types
of school and student characteristics which affect the cost of achieving desired schooling outcomes.
This concept of need features in Chapter 4.2 in relation to the proposed per student amounts and
loadings under the schooling resource standard.
In terms of the balance in funding requirements between public and private funding, need can be
conceptualised as either:
• the capacity for parents and a school community to contribute towards the cost of schooling
through fees and other private assistance
• the actual extent to which they do so, which may reflect the extent to which they are asked to
contribute by schools or are willing to contribute.
75

Both these concepts can have significant implications for policy, as well as the practicalities of how
need is measured. Defining need as capacity of parents to contribute assumes that all those with the
same level of capacity have a similar willingness and expectation to make a financial contribution
through fees. Currently across the non-government sector there is a wide range of fees charged
among schools with similar SES scores. Among non-government schools funded according to their
SES score, fees generally rise as SES scores rise, but the variation in fees charged is also very large
(see Figure 29).
One argument for allocating public funding based on actual school private income or resources is that
this would better accommodate the long-established diversity in parental contributions within the
non-government sector (see Figure 30). It could also act as a constraint on fee increases which could
be a barrier to parents choosing a non-government school.
However, there are significant issues with linking public funding to the actual recurrent resources
available to non-government schools. Before the SES funding model was introduced, the ERI was used
to compare the level of private income that a school had available with the cost of a standard basket of
recurrent resources per pupil (see Box 4). By the late 1990s there were several concerns with the ERI,
including that it was:
• complex and difficult to understand, primarily due to decisions by successive governments not
to reduce the dollar amounts received by schools when they were assessed to have moved into a
lower funding category. As a result, the original 12 funding categories had increased to 31 by 1997
• not perceived to be applied consistently and equitably across similar schools, with scope for expert
advice about its application to confer advantage on some schools
• constraining investment in education because any significant additional private investment (for
example through fees) resulted in a reduction in government subsidies
• lacking in flexibility because it required historical levels of private funding to be maintained over
time (DEETYA 1997; KPMG 1996; Wilkinson et al. 2006).
The shift to the SES funding model, and with it funding need based on capacity to contribute, occurred
because it was believed that it would provide a transparent, simpler and fairer funding system. In
particular, a measure of capacity such as SES was seen as more objective and verifiable, while also
minimising disincentives for parents to invest in their childrens’ schools.
76

Review of Funding for Schooling77Figure 29: Average fees per student for SES funded schools, 2009Fees per student $’000School SES score708090100110120130140051015202530Source: DEEWR administrative data 2009.
Figure 30: Average fees per student and student numbers by Index of Community
Socio-Educational Advantage and sector, 2009Fees per student: Catholic Fees per student: Government Fees per student: Independent
Students: Catholic Students: Government Students: IndependentAverage fee per student $’0000100200300400500600700800024681012141618>12001150–12001100–11501050–11001000–1050950–1000900–950850–900800–850750–800<750Number of students (‘000s)
ICSEANote: Includes gross fees, charges and parental contributions. Excludes schools with no ICSEA 2010 score. Catholic schools include
both systemic and non-systemic Catholic schools.
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.







Census.
Box 4: The Education Resources Index
The ERI measured a non-government school’s need for government funding on the basis of the
shortfall between its private income and a standard level of resources based on government
school per student costs.
Private income included all income raised by a school for recurrent, capital and boarding
purposes including gross income from fees, excursions, fundraising, donations and other
activities. Schools were also required to place a monetary value on goods and services
provided free of charge. Deductions were then made for:
a Capital Allowance—this provided schools with the means to regenerate their capital
facilities over a 20-year period. The allowance was calculated on a sliding scale, providing
most assistance to the neediest schools
a Boarding Allowance—this was a per capita deduction for the reasonable capital and
recurrent costs of a school’s boarding operations.
Adjusted private income was compared to an Assessment Standard representing the
standard level of resources against which the relative needs of non-government schools were
assessed. It represented the cost of operating a school of a given size with weights applied to
primary schools under 200 students and secondary schools under 500 students.
Also under the ERI arrangements:
Schools were required to maintain their expenditure on recurrent resources and increase
their private income by an average of 3 per cent per annum. They could increase their private
income by up to 5 per cent per annum without penalty of being re-categorised to a lower
funding level.
A Capital Concession allowed private income in excess of the Capital Allowance to be deducted
from a school’s private income in some cases. It was not automatic and approval depended on
the income being applied to eligible projects to cater for existing students.
Data for the ERI calculations was collected through an annual Financial Questionnaire and
Source: KPMG 1996; DEETYA 1997.
Linking recurrent funding to school assets, as was suggested in some submissions, would also be
problematic in that:
• the major asset of most non-government schools is the land and buildings they occupy, and the
capital value of these assets varies widely depending on location and may reflect historical rather
than current endowments that cannot be realised readily
• data on assets and resources would be expensive and burdensome to collect and hard to verify
• cash reserves held by schools and related bodies vary considerably between schools, reflecting not
just capacity and age of the school, but also the school’s past decisions about how to manage its
affairs and to provide for future capital and recurrent needs.
In the panel’s view there remain a number of strong principled and practical arguments for continuing
to base the allocation of the public contribution to non-government schools on the expected capacity
of parents to make a financial contribution, rather than the extent to which they actually do so or have
done so in the past. In particular, capacity to contribute:
• provides a fairer, more consistent and transparent basis for funding the different types of
non-government schools to which parents can choose to send their children
78

• is simpler and less intrusive for schools and governments to administer than a model based on
actual contributions given that different schools finance their recurrent and capital needs in very
different ways
• provides stronger incentives for private investment by parents and others. Linking public funding to
the actual private contribution would distort these incentives
• involves a more comprehensive and objective sense of a school’s need for public assistance. Actual
recurrent fees and charges are not always an accurate indicator of need as schools operate in
different ways, with some relying on other sources of private income, for example, donations and
levies for a mix of capital and recurrent purposes.
The panel recognises that this approach will need to be implemented carefully within a new funding
model to adequately take account of the considerable diversity in the existing private contribution
among non-government schools. Given the Australian Government’s announcement that no school will
lose a dollar per student as a result of this review, the panel has explored how an approach based on
the capacity of parents to contribute can be implemented consistent with that commitment and within
the totality of the new funding arrangements. The panel believes that this is essentially achievable in
the detailed development of a new model, depending on the other funding parameters and transitional
arrangements.
Recommendation 2
In a new model for funding non-government schools, the assessment of a non-government
school’s need for public funding should be based on the anticipated capacity of the parents
enrolling their children in the school to contribute financially towards the school’s resource
requirements.
2.3.3 The measure of need
Submissions to the review expressed differing views over how need should be measured and whether
SES is suitable for this purpose. Many submissions from the independent sector supported the continued
use of SES, arguing that it provides an effective and efficient mechanism for directing Australian
Government recurrent funding according to need. In particular, it was said to minimise disincentives for
private investment in schooling and to be based on reliable, objective and independent data.
On the other hand, organisations from the Catholic sector argued that SES was inappropriate as it
did not support their philosophy of providing low-fee schooling that is accessible to students from
all backgrounds. SES was said to effectively assume a homogenous population for each school with
each parent having the same capacity or willingness to contribute. A hybrid measure was suggested
involving indicators of both the availability of recurrent resources and the SES of the school.
Organisations and individuals representing government schools also argued that the area-based
measurement of SES overestimated need because students attending non-government schools
were said to often come from higher SES households within each census Collection District. State
and territory government submissions argued that SES was not an effective differentiator of need
where disadvantage is widely spread within a geographical area or where economic disadvantage is
compounded by other factors such as remoteness.
In considering these issues the panel identified several desirable characteristics any measure of need
should have for the purpose of allocating public funding to non-government schools:
• accuracy and validity in measuring the capacity of the school to be funded from private sources in
the context in which it is applied to individual schools or to whole systems
79

• consistency in the treatment of systems and schools in similar circumstances
• economy in the use of limited public funds by providing incentives for private investment to be
maintained and increased over time
• objectivity, simplicity and transparency in the derivation of the measure
• sensitivity to changes in circumstances
• economy in administrative costs for schools, systems and governments.
It was recognised that no one measure is likely to satisfy all these requirements. It was also
recognised that changing the measure of need can have a significant impact on school funding,
creating the potential for uncertainty for schools.
Accuracy and validity refer to the extent to which SES measures what it purports to measure, that is,
the capacity of non-government systems and schools to generate funds on their own behalf (DETYA
1998). When the SES measure was being developed in the late 1990s, it was the subject of a validation
study. This study concluded that, overall, SES correlated well with a range of measures of parental
income and wealth, at least at a national or state or territory level (DETYA 1999). Ongoing questions
about the accuracy of the SES measure focus primarily on its derivation from a small geographical
area rather than individual data.
When the SES measure was developed, the potential to link student addresses to census Collection
District data was innovative yet practical, making use of the lowest available level of census data and
home addresses for students which were already collected by schools as a matter of course. While
there was an awareness that even such small areas were not completely homogenous, it was believed
that differences between Collection Districts were generally greater than the difference between
individuals within a Collection District (DETYA 1998). As this information is not directly linked to
funding, it was also seen as independent, transparent and reliable, while avoiding the concern that a
more direct measure would require a special collection of information from each family, raising issues
of privacy and reliability.
More recent work has questioned the assumption that Collection Districts are relatively homogenous
and that there is limited potential for error in making judgments about individuals, based on the
characteristics of the area in which they live—known as the ‘ecological fallacy’. Using census data
for Western Australia and measuring SES using ABS Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas, one study
suggests that there is a large amount of heterogeneity in the SES of individuals and families within
small areas (Baker and Adhikari 2007). Another ABS study found that this holds across Australia (Wise
and Mathews 2011). Other work confirms the potential for misclassification by relying on area-based
measures (Lim and Gemici 2011). It has been argued that, on the basis of some limited local area data
within the same Collection Districts, government school students are less likely to come from
high-income families than students from Catholic and independent schools (Preston 2010).
The development of individual measures of SES has only become technically possible in recent
years and debate over the details of the methodology is continuing. The Index of Community
Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) was developed specifically for the purpose of identifying like
schools for comparison of NAPLAN results on the My School website and includes a large number
of components which are weighted in a particular way to maximise its explanatory power for this
purpose (see Box 5). As such it would not be a suitable measure of need for allocating funding to
non-government schools, but it does show that individual measures of SES are becoming more
feasible. For the 2010 calculations, ICSEA was a hybrid measure that used direct parent data where
it was available from that already collected at enrolment and indirect area-based data from the ABS
census in other cases.
80

Noting that there are concerns about the robustness of ICSEA, which is still a relatively new measure
and continues to be bedded down, the panel considers that there is a potential to develop a more
precise measure of parental capacity to contribute to the resource base of a non-government school.
In the meantime, the existing SES measure could be used as the basis for estimating the quantum of
the expected private contribution as described in Chapter 4.2.












Recommendation 3
For the purposes of allocating public funding for non-government schools, the Australian
Government should continue to use the existing area-based socioeconomic status (SES)
measure, and as soon as possible develop, trial and implement a new measure for estimating the
quantum of the anticipated private contribution for non-government schools in consultation with
the states, territories and non-government sectors.
Box 5: How the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage is calculated
The variables used in calculating a value on the ICSEA scale are:
Socio-educational advantage—this is measured by variables for parental occupation and
education.
Where data is collected directly from parents at the point of school enrolment, it includes
variables for:
occupation (associate professional and skilled non-professional)
school education (Year 10 or equivalent, Year 9 or equivalent or below)
non-school education (bachelor’s degree or above, advanced diploma/diploma,
non-school qualification).
Where data is not able to be collected directly from parents, it is calculated indirectly at
census Collection District level using variables for:
education (percentage of people aged 15 years and over with a certificate qualification,
and the percentage with no post-school qualifications)
occupation (percentage of employed people who work in a skill Level 4 occupation,
percentage of employed people who work in a skill Level 5 occupation)
others (percentage of families that are one-parent families with dependent offspring
only, percentage of occupied private dwellings with no internet connection).
Remoteness—this is measured at school level by the ABS Accessibility/Remoteness Index of
Australia.
Indigenous—this is measured at school level by the percentage of students in the school who
are Indigenous.
Disadvantaged LBOTE—this is measured at school level by the percentage of students from
a LBOTE combined with the percentage of parents with an education of Year 9 equivalent or
below.
Source: ACARA 2011.
81

2.3.4 Funding Maintenance
Funding Maintained arrangements were a key issue in representations to the review, particularly the
equity between Funding Maintained and non-maintained schools with the same SES score and the
effect of Funding Maintenance on the perceived integrity of the SES funding model.
It was also argued that most of the additional funding provided through Funding Maintenance goes
to higher SES schools and that a confusing number of different levels of per capita funding can apply
to schools on the same SES score. Some independent sector representatives argued that the greater
affordability of Catholic systemic schools was underpinned by Funding Maintenance and that the same
level of choice, accessibility and affordability should be available for all parents seeking to choose an
education for their child.
Organisations representing the Catholic sector and other independent Funding Maintained schools
argued that they need at least the current level of total government funding in real terms to continue
to educate students in those schools. Any reduction in funding would put pressure on fees or resource
adequacy. Withdrawal of that funding, it was argued, could affect the financial viability of those schools
in the future.
The various rates of AGSRC at which non-government schools are actually funded are depicted in
Figure 31. The size of each circle represents the number of schools with a particular SES score and
funding rate expressed as a percentage of AGSRC. The colour of each circle indicates the funding
status of the schools. Figure 31 shows the extent to which the SES funding model applies only partially
to the sector, with the largest divergence relating to some 890 Funding Maintained Catholic systemic
schools, 97 per cent of which are funded at 56.2 per cent of AGSRC. It also shows that:
• most Funding Maintained schools are in the middle of the SES distribution, with two-thirds having
an SES score between 95 and 110. Only 10 per cent of Funding Maintained schools have a school
SES score of 120 or higher
• while the per student amounts provided by Funding Maintenance are greatest for schools with
the highest SES scores, the per student amounts for most schools which are not high SES are
considerably smaller
• it would be difficult to completely address the funding anomalies associated with Funding
Maintenance by recalibrating the existing funding model in a way that did not disadvantage any
school and also retained a reasonable degree of targeting of assistance to schools in need.
82

Figure 31: Funding rates by school SES score and funding status, 2010
Per cent of AGSRC
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
funded schools with an SES
This circle represents 11
Funding Maintained schools
with an SES score of 122
This circle represents 15 SES
score of 107
Funding Guaranteed
Funding Maintained
SES funded
School SES score
Note: Excludes special schools, special assistance schools and majority Indigenous student schools, all of which receive automatic
entitlement to maximum funding.
Source: DEEWR administrative data 2010.
By jurisdiction, the highest concentration of Funding Maintained schools is in the Australian Capital
Territory (89 per cent) and Northern Territory (61 per cent), while the highest proportion of SES funded
schools is in Tasmania (79 per cent). The average size of Funding Maintained schools is higher
(517 students) than for SES funded schools (381 students). Funding Maintained status applies to all
of the campuses of a school, including new campuses of an existing Funding Maintained school. In
contrast, all new schools are funded on their SES score.
Figure 32 provides a picture of the aggregate funding provided to schools through Funding
Maintenance, taking into account both the number of schools at different SES scores and their
enrolments, as well as the differences between Funding Maintained and SES model rates. In the
Catholic sector, 77 per cent of the funding is nominally allocated by the Australian Government to
schools with an SES score between 100 and 119. In the independent sector, over one-quarter of the
funding is allocated to schools with an SES score between 115 and 119.
For systemic schools, the impact of Funding Maintenance at the school level is also affected by
allocation decisions by system authorities based on their own funding formulas or assessments of
need, which take into account a wider range of factors than the SES funding model (see Chapter 2.1).
Therefore, the funding nominally allocated to a school under the SES formula may be greater or less
than the actual allocation by system authorities. This effect is largest in the eight Catholic systems.
Analysis suggests that school size, remoteness and majority Indigenous student composition are the
most significant dimensions around which this redistribution occurs. While an element of the support
provided through Funding Maintenance is therefore redistributed among schools in Catholic systems,
the major impact is that it allows fees overall to be lower than would otherwise be the case within the
same overall level of resources.
83

Figure 32: Estimated value of Funding Maintenance to schools by school SES score,
2010
$ millions
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
95–99 100–104 105–109 110–114 115–119 120–124 125–129 130 and
above
SES score
Independent schools
Catholic schools
Note: Catholic schools include both systemic and non-systemic Catholic schools.
Source: DEEWR administrative data 2010.
In effect, Funding Maintenance represents a compromise between the previous and current funding
arrangements for non-government schools, which allows earlier levels of funding to continue for some
schools. Moreover, given the extent to which some systems and schools benefit from it, it will take
many years before all schools are funded on a common basis if the current arrangements continue.
In the panel’s view, it is critical that funding for all non-government systems and schools is based on a
single measure of need to ensure the integrity and fairness of new funding arrangements. The funding
model set out in Part 4 of this report outlines a framework for funding schooling that would achieve
these objectives over the longer term.
Recommendation 4
From 2014, non-government schools should be funded by the Australian Government on the
basis of a common measure of need that is applied fairly and consistently to all.
2.3.5 Minimum public contribution
The panel noted a number of arguments in submissions about whether or not a minimum public
funding level should be provided to all non-government schools and why.
Those against a minimum public contribution argued that some schools already have a level of
resources, which they have raised from parents and their communities over a period of time,
significantly above that required to meet reasonable resource needs. Providing public funding to these
schools was criticised as unnecessary and a poor use of limited public funds when needs are higher
elsewhere. High fees in these schools may be an indicator of the willingness and capacity of some
parents to invest very heavily in their children’s schooling, as well as a preference for private schooling
that is unlikely to be affected by reduced public funding.
84

The panel also noted a number of arguments that could be put in favour of a minimum level of public
funding for all non-government schools, principally that the Australian Government has for many
decades provided an entitlement to every student in every school.
The panel acknowledged the Australian Government’s announcement that no school would lose a
dollar per student as a result of this review. This means that under a revised funding model every
non-government school would receive at least some public funding regardless of the capacity of the
school to contribute or of its actual contribution to the funding for the schooling of its students.
Finding 13
The most efficient way to meet the Australian Government’s announcement that no school would
lose a dollar per student as a result of this review is through a minimum public contribution
towards the cost of schooling in non-government schools.
2.3.6 Conclusion
The panel concluded that the major strength of the existing SES funding model is that public funding is
directly related to the capacity of non-government schools to fund their own resourcing requirements.
The use of an SES-type measure for this purpose provides a fair, consistent, and transparent basis for
funding the different types of non-government schools that parents can choose to send their children.
It is also simpler and less intrusive for schools and government to administer and does not distort
incentives for private investment.
However, the area-based SES measure used at present is subject to potentially significant error due to
variability in family SES within census Collection Districts. This should be replaced in time with a more
precise measure that would reflect directly the circumstances and background of each student in a
non-government school.
The panel was also concerned about the extent of exceptions to the SES model under the Funding
Maintenance arrangements. In the panel’s view, it is critical that funding for all non-government
systems and schools is based on a single measure of need to ensure the integrity and fairness of
new funding arrangements. The extent of exceptions in the current arrangements calls into question
the integrity of the overall model for funding non-government schools. The panel considers that
governments have an important role to play in funding non-government schools and that this needs to
occur within a coherent and principled framework that is applied consistently to all
non-government schools.
The panel recognises that the approach outlined in Part 4 of this report will need to be implemented
carefully within a new funding model to adequately take account of the diversity of schools and their
actual private sources of revenue.
85

86

2.4 Capital funding
Student outcomes are strongly influenced by the design of learning spaces and the facilities in a
school. In preparing students for participating in the dynamic and constantly changing world, schools
should be resourced so that they can create settings for innovative teaching, connect with new
technologies, and match the requirements of contemporary curriculum.
All levels of government play a role in providing funding to government and non-government schools
for the maintenance of school capital and for major capital works. However, state and territory
governments have primary responsibility for these activities in government schools, with the
Australian Government providing some supplementary funding through the National Schools SPP. In
the non-government sector, the Australian Government plays a greater role than state and territory
governments in providing capital funding to non-government schools, though private income provides,
on average, the largest share of income for capital works in these schools.
The My School website has provided, for the first time, information on capital expenditure in schools.
These data confirm community opinion that there is an uneven investment in capital and infrastructure
in schools, and that this is particularly apparent when the total capital expenditure of the three
schooling sectors is compared. It is also clear that, on average, the facilities and infrastructure within
some government schools are not of a comparable standard, and this is impacting on the attitudes and
morale of students and staff, as well as on school enrolments.
This chapter describes the current investment by governments and the community in school capital
and infrastructure, and discusses a number of issues relating to maintenance and major works for
existing schools, as well as processes for establishing new schools. While the case for change is
presented in this chapter, the panel’s proposal for future capital funding is detailed in Chapter 4.3.
2.4.1 State and territory government capital funding
In addition to the primary responsibility of state and territory governments in funding capital and
infrastructure in government schools, they also have responsibility for registering and regulating
all schools, including new schools, in their state or territory. As part of this, both government and
non-government schools within a jurisdiction must comply with various standards and regulations
related to school buildings and facilities in order to meet their ongoing registration and regulatory
requirements. In the government sector, state and territory governments also have responsibility for
the costs of establishing new schools and for school closures.
Government schools
State and territory governments generally allocate a funding amount for maintenance and minor
works to schools, but the degree to which this is managed centrally or by schools varies. For example,
New South Wales and the Northern Territory manage a large proportion of costs centrally. In contrast,
funding for maintenance and minor works is generally allocated to individual government schools
to manage in the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria, with schools able to choose how their
recurrent resources are allocated between staffing and other recurrent costs such as maintenance
and minor works.
87

For most states and territories the actual amount of capital funding allocated for each school is
determined using a combination of formulas and nominal allocations. The resourcing formulas include
separate allocations for minor capital expenses, such as cleaning, utilities costs, school grounds
and building maintenance, and equipment. These expenses are calculated based on relevant school
characteristics, such as:
• enrolments
• school size
• special physical, demographic or geographical characteristics of schools
• school complexity factors such as multi-site schools.
Keating et al. (2011) found that all government systems retain responsibility at a central level for major
capital works and infrastructure, major repairs, and ICT infrastructure and networking. Allocations
to schools for these more major capital items are based on a combination of condition assessments,
planning related to enrolments and population growth, and emergency allocations. The allocations are
managed either through education departments or their regional offices, a sub-agency such as the
Asset Management Unit in New South Wales, or a public assets agency in another department, such as
Building Management and Works in Western Australia.
Non-government schools
Most jurisdictions provide some capital funding for non-government schools in the form of grants or,
more commonly, interest rate subsidies (see Table 15). In some cases, eligibility is limited to schools
servicing disadvantaged communities. In other cases, eligibility may be contingent on meeting priority
needs, as determined by the state or territory government.
School registration and facilities standards
As part of the responsibility of state and territory governments to ensure universal access to education
for all students, legislation generally provides the state or territory Education Minister with the power
to establish government schools where there is a need. With the exception of Victoria, government
schools in each state and territory are not required to be formally registered. However, legislation
places expectations on government schools around curriculum and student welfare that are similar to
the standards that non-government schools are expected to meet in order to be registered.
As well as establishing new government schools, the Education Minister has the power to amalgamate
and close government schools by following prescribed procedures outlined in the legislation. For
example, in Western Australia, section 56 of the School Education Act 1999 requires the minister to
consult with the affected parties of a proposal to amalgamate or close schools, including parents and
students, school councils and P&C associations on matters such as the alternative arrangements for
the enrolment of students who are affected by the proposal. The appropriateness of the arrangements
and the disbursement of any assets realised as a result of the proposal are also discussed
in consultations.
88

Jurisdiction
Queensland
Table 15: State and territory capital funding for non-government schools
Funding provided
New South Wales Interest subsidy scheme for eligible schools in ERI categories 4–12 which contribute at least 15%
of project cost.
Victoria Interest subsidy scheme for non-government schools subsidises up to 66% of interest to a
maximum of $5,000 for two financial years.
Applies only to commercial loans of up to 10 years’ duration.
Capital assistance scheme provides grants to schools allocated through BGAs.
External infrastructure subsidy meets some other costs associated with capital works projects.
Western Australia Low-interest loan scheme subsidises borrowings at varying rates according to a project’s
priority, e.g. whether it assists in providing places for students at schools in areas of population
growth or is simply to upgrade facilities.
South Australia Small interest subsidy scheme.
Tasmania Capital assistance scheme provides both interest rate subsidies and grants.
Australian Capital
Territory
Not currently provided.
Northern Territory Capital assistance scheme provides a 50% capital subsidy and 50% of the interest charged by the
lending institution. Subsidies paid over 10 years.
Source: Adapted from Keating et al. 2011.
The registration of new non-government schools is generally through a specific body set up under
legislation for that purpose. For example, in Queensland the Non-State Schools Accreditation Board
has been set up to process applications for the registration of new schools. Similarly, South Australia
has the Non-Government Schools Registration Board, established under the Education Act 1972.
The new school must satisfy a number of requirements before it can be registered, as set out in
Chapter 1.1.
In deciding whether to establish a new non-government school, the state or territory Education
Minister needs to be satisfied that there will be sufficient children available to attend the school,
the establishment of the school will not adversely affect the viability of other schools in the area,
and the school has sufficient students to be able to provide a range of curriculum programs and
learning experiences.
As part of registering schools, state and territory governments are responsible for ensuring that
school facilities are of an appropriate standard. What standards are considered appropriate and how
they are assessed vary between jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have statements about standards for
school buildings. For example, in New South Wales the School Facilities Standards apply to all new
schools, and in Tasmania the Building Better Schools Guidelines are used for all capital projects in
government schools. While these standards exist, the monitoring of government school facilities is
believed to be ad hoc. School registration boards set up in each state and territory have the capacity to
inspect schools to ensure that they are meeting their registration standards, including those that are
related to facilities, but little information is available on how this is done.
89

2.4.2 Australian Government capital funding
The Australian Government has played a supplementary role in the provision of funding for school
capital since the 1960s. At this time, the Australian Government was responding to clearly identifiable
physical needs, and beginning to link effective and modern schooling to a productive economy.
Capital grants were initially provided for science laboratories and equipment and libraries, in both
the government and non-government school sectors (Wilkinson et al. 2006). Some form of Australian
Government funding for school capital has operated in both sectors since then.
Capital funding for non-government schools
The Australian Government currently contributes to non-government school infrastructure via the
Capital Grants Program. The objectives of the program include the provision and improvement of
non-government school capital infrastructure, particularly for the most educationally disadvantaged
students, and ensuring that attention is given to the refurbishment and upgrading of capital
infrastructure for existing students, while making provision for needs arising from new demographic
and enrolment needs (DEEWR 2010). Between 2009 and 2012, the program is estimated to provide
$543 million to non-government schools. Capital grants are intended to be supplementary to the
private income that non-government schools use to provide, maintain and upgrade school facilities.
Capital grants are provided through Block Grant Authorities, which have been established to receive
and assess grant applications, make recommendations to the Australian Government Education
Minister about various matters, and administer non-government capital grants for participating
schools. There are two Block Grant Authorities in each state, one servicing the Catholic school sector
and the other servicing independent systems and schools. There is a joint Catholic and independent
Block Grant Authority in both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.
Capital funding for government schools
While the Australian Government does not currently operate a separate capital grants program for
government schools, a proportion of the current National Schools SPP is funding that was previously
provided for capital projects under the Capital Grants Program. The amount for capital funding that
was ‘rolled into’ the National Schools SPP is roughly equivalent to $350 to $400 million per year.
The Australian Government also provides funding for infrastructure in government and
non-government schools through a number of National Partnerships (see Table 16).
90

Description
Building the
Century
Schools
National School Pride
Schools
$2.47 billion until 2016–17
$2.50 billion until 2012–13(a)
(jiiTable 16: National Partnerships relating to school infrastructure
Program Funding
Education
Revolution
An estimated $16.31 billion
until 2011–12 under three main
elements:
To provide contemporary educational facilities through new
infrastructure and refurbishments to schools. BER funding has
been allocated for approximately 24,000 projects.
Primary Schools for the 21st Funding approved for 10,475 projects in 7,920 schools including
new libraries, multipurpose halls, classrooms and the
refurbishment of existing facilities.
Science and Language Centres
for 21st Century Secondary
Funding approved for 537 schools to refurbish or construct new
science laboratories or language learning centres.
Funding approved for 12,639 projects in 9,462 schools, including
the refurbishment of buildings and construction or upgrade of
fixed shade structures, covered outdoor learning areas, sporting
grounds and facilities and green upgrades.
Trade Training
Centres in
Funding for the building of new, or the upgrading of existing, trade
or vocational education and training facilities in schools.
Funds of $1.03 billion have been allocated over three rounds, with
a fourth round closing in November 2011.
Digital
Education
Revolution
Includes National Secondary
School Computer Fund: funding
of $1,000 per computer and up
to $1,500 for the installation and
maintenance of that device.
Funding assists schools to provide new computers and other ICT
equipment for students in Years 9 to 12, as well as funding for
installation and maintenance.
As at 30 June 2011, over 589,000 computers had been installed.
a) Subect to renegotiaton prior to termination date.
Source: DEEWR admnistrative data 2011.
2.4.3 Private income and support from the community
Parents and benefactors play a significant role in funding facilities in non-government schools.
Generous contributions by these parties are an essential part of these schools, and are received as
specific tax deductible donations, fees for capital that are transferred from recurrent funds, or income
raised through fundraising activities. In 2009, $1.8 billion in capital expenditure came from these
sources in the non-government sector (ACARA dataset 2011).
Fees and income from fundraising activities are also collected in government schools and expended
on capital projects. In 2009, $181 million was expended on capital projects from private sources in the
government sector.
In addition to the significant contribution of fees, donations and fundraising to capital projects
in schools, there are a variety of ways in which the community can both support and use school
infrastructure. For example, Local Schools Working Together is a pilot program funded by the
Australian Government that aims to foster a shared approach to the construction and use of
educational facilities between government and non-government schools. In 2009, two funding rounds
totalling $62.5 million contributed towards the construction of 26 shared educational facilities
across Australia.
Another example is the National Public Private Partnership Policy and Guidelines, which have been
adopted by most Australian Government and state and territory government agencies since 2008. The
policy requires that governments consider public private partnerships for any school capital project,
where the cost exceeds $50 million.
91

Overall, these initiatives recognise the financial challenges associated with developing and maintaining
school facilities, and seek to maximise their benefit for the community at large, while identifying
efficient ways to resource them. They also highlight the potential for coordinated investment in the
planning of school infrastructure across the schooling sectors.
However, submissions to the review from all schooling sectors raised concern about the inefficient
investment in and use of school facilities. Some submissions discussed the need for school facilities to
be accessible outside of school hours for community use, and for planning to include consideration of
how these assets can be converted to alternative uses to provide long-term value to the community.
The panel recognises the role of government and non-government school systems and schools in
driving and supporting these mutually beneficial arrangements, and believes that consideration
of the broader potential for community use of school facilities should be built into all planning and
funding processes.
2.4.4 Levels and sources of capital investment in aggregate
Capital expenditure by jurisdiction and sector
ACARA collects national data on the total level and distribution of capital expenditure and capital
funding sources for each schooling sector (Table 17). It is important to note that these figures include
the significant impact of the Building the Education Revolution National Partnership, and so do not
represent the ongoing level of Australian Government funding or the proportional commitment of the
various funding sources.
other
1,443 1,524 169 0 12 3,148 (49%)
Catholic 806 58 230 288 247 1,629 (26%)
Independent 549 36 223 375 415 1,598 (25%)
2,798 1,618 622 663 674 6,375 (100%)
iiiiiTable 17: Level of capital expenditure by funding source, 2009 ($m)
Australian
Government
State
government Fees New loans
Private—
Total
Government
Total
Note: ‘Fees’ includes income received from parents as school fees; ‘new loans’ refers to the amount funded by captal loan drawdowns;
and ‘prvate—other’ includes income receved from other sources such as donations, received specifically for captal purposes,
from fundraising actvities and profits.
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
According to Table 17, even with additional government funding from the Building the Education
Revolution National Partnership, only 49 per cent of the total expenditure on school infrastructure
was in government schools, a far lower percentage than the government sector’s enrolment share of
66 per cent.
Figure 33 shows that government investment in school infrastructure lags far behind investment in the
non-government sector. These figures clearly demonstrate a high level of private sector commitment
to investment in non-government schools. This analysis most likely hides wide variation within sectors,
particularly within the independent sector, which is the least homogenous sector in terms of student
demographics. In addition, because Australia does not have an accepted national standard against
which the adequacy of school infrastructure can be assessed, it is not possible to know whether these
figures indicate a significant under- or overinvestment in school capital in any schooling sector.
92

Figure 33: Average capital investment per student (in 2008 dollars)
$ per student
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Government Catholic Independent
Source: MCEETYA, National report on schooling in Australia, 2003 to 2008.
Funding levels in government schools vary by jurisdiction. Figure 34 indicates the extent of variation
in investment by jurisdiction, but does not tell us what it can be attributed to in terms of differences in
costs, nor in choices about funding capital. Figure 34 includes Australian Government and state and
territory government expenditure, as well as other reported expenditure.
As well as the level of investment, the sources of capital funding vary by sector and jurisdiction. The
proportion of capital expenditure for government, Catholic and independent schools by funding source
is shown in Figure 35. Governments are the main capital funders for government schools, with most
jurisdictions reporting close to 100 per cent in government-funded capital expenditure. Most of this
funding comes from state and territory governments, with the Western Australian, Queensland and
Australian Capital Territory Governments providing a significantly greater proportion of capital funding
compared to other jurisdictions.
Capital funding patterns are broadly similar across the Catholic and independent sectors, with
about half of all capital expenditure funded by government sources, although this varies between
jurisdictions. It is important to note that a large proportion of the investment in the non-government
sector is from private sources.
93

$ per student
NSW Vic Qld SA WA NT
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2007–082006–072005–062004–052003–042002–03
i iiaFigure 34: Average capital investment per student in government schools,
by jurisdiction (in 2008 dollars)
Tas ACT
Source: MCEETYA, National report on schoolngn Austral, 2003 to 2008.
Figure 35 clearly shows that non-government schools have a range of sources from which they fund
capital expenditure, whereas schools in the government sector are almost entirely reliant on public
funding for capital works. Schools are also able to reallocate part of their recurrent income to meet
capital expenses. The patterns of this are related to the amount of recurrent income received, school
flexibility, and capital income from other sources, and vary by sector.
Cost drivers of capital
The cost drivers of capital vary significantly depending on characteristics, needs and priorities of the
school community. For example, schools in rural and remote locations have both different costs and
cost drivers. Boarding facilities and special schools also have individual needs. There is a need to
meet regulatory requirements from local to national levels such as the Disability Discrimination Act
1992, the Building Code of Australia, safety and environmental standards, and requirements set by
local councils.
The age of school buildings also impacts on maintenance costs. The older the capital stock becomes,
the more expensive it is to maintain at a high standard, particularly if the building design is no longer
applicable to a modern education environment. Additional costs may apply depending on the size
and complexity of the school facilities. Schools with larger buildings and more diverse facilities,
such as sporting grounds and specialist performing arts facilities, will often have larger utilities and
maintenance costs.
94

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
NTSAWA
Government Catholic Independent
QldVicNSW NTSAWAQldVicNSW NTSAWAQldVicNSW
Australian Government State government Private — other
iiFigure 35: Proportion of capital expenditure by funding source, 2009
Per cent
ACT Tas ACT Tas ACT Tas
New loans Fees
Note: ‘New loans’ refers to funding from capital loan drawdowns. In the non-government sector, ‘private—other’ refers to funding from
other prvate sources including retained earnings from prevous years. In the government sector, ‘private—other’ includes fees.
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
In addition, there are a range of cost drivers that relate to specific requirements of individual
schools, including:
• upgrading and expanding existing facilities to meet the need for new student places
• creating modern teaching and learning spaces that utilise new technologies
• maintaining capacity and quality of school libraries
• maintaining boarding facilities for students
• maintaining facilities for students with disability
• curriculum offerings—for example trade-related courses and other specialist courses will cost
more to deliver
• meeting the higher costs in small, remote and special needs schools
• the servicing of loans (particularly for non-systemic schools) for capital projects.
Is the level of investment right?
It is not yet possible to identify the correct level of investment in school capital based on the
data available for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is limited understanding of the quality of
infrastructure and facilities that are appropriate to support student outcomes. Secondly, nationally
comparable data on capital expenditure has only recently been available at a school level through
the My School website. Thirdly, there is limited understanding of the different cost drivers and costs
associated with the provision and maintenance of school infrastructure and facilities.
The Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce (BERIT) was established in April 2011
in response to issues relating to the implementation of the Building the Education Revolution National
Partnership. To assist the BERIT to assess value for money in the BER projects, it developed the BER
Cost Analysis Model (BER CAM) database. The BER CAM enabled the benchmarking of the costs of
95

building school infrastructure. DEEWR is currently undertaking a tender to identify a custodian for the
database, that will be responsible for developing and maintaining the database so that it can be used
as a cost benchmarking tool for school infrastructure projects.
There is a lack of data and public accountability in the current schooling system which makes it
difficult for school communities to understand their capital funding rights and needs. The lack of
data also makes it difficult for governments to understand and assess their funding objectives and
priorities. The panel sees a strong need for national guidance on this issue and believes stronger
arguments should be developed to justify the level of government expenditure.
2.4.5 Adequacy and quality of school infrastructure
A strong message coming from the submissions to the review was that in many schools, particularly
government schools and non-government schools serving disadvantaged communities, infrastructure
is not of high quality, and in some cases is clearly inadequate. This was cited as having a range
of effects:
• The ability of government schools to be competitive with some non-government schools for
enrolments can be compromised
• Schools are not able to offer education that will meet the national goals of schooling
• Not all students have access to the same range of educational opportunities
• Morale of students and teachers is adversely affected
• Students and teachers do not feel safe in the school environment
• School environments are not well tailored to local circumstances and could be better matched to
educational need
• Community groups are not able to access the facilities.
Several submissions noted the lack of objective information about school infrastructure, and
suggested that national infrastructure audits, or the development of a national assessment framework
for school facilities standards, could be considered.
It is the panel’s view that every teacher and student in Australian schools should have access to
facilities that provide the basic necessities, such as space, and health and safety features. The panel
also strongly believes it is crucial that teaching and learning environments are of sufficiently high
quality to maximise the educational value and opportunities for all students. To date, there has been
no clear national statement about what quality of facilities Australia expects for its schools. It is the
panel’s position that this should be developed and then used to assess whether schools are equipped
to meet these expectations.
Definitions of adequacy
Adequacy and quality of infrastructure are difficult to assess because of the complex ways in which the
physical environment of a school and educational value are linked.
Certain basic conditions are essential to provide an adequate teaching and learning environment,
and many of these are already defined in state legislation and assessed as part of the registration
of schools. This includes the provision of appropriate learning spaces for students and teachers,
temperature control, health and safety features, and sanitary facilities. Some national standards
also apply, such as the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards. The BERIT also
recommended that national standards around air conditioning and environmentally sustainable design
be developed and applied.
96

More difficult to define is how the quality of infrastructure affects teaching and learning, and what
additional features are required to deliver modern, world-class teaching and learning environments.
Table 18 summarises a number of recent approaches to defining the adequacy and quality of school
infrastructure in Australia. These approaches highlight that there has been more of a focus on the
measurable, physical characteristics of buildings, and that subjective assessments of the contribution
to teaching and learning are used. Absent from this list is any national target standard stating what
facilities we expect teachers and students to have access to.
Data about adequacy
Evidence about the state of the capital stock in Australian schools is patchy at best. A survey of
non-government school infrastructure in Australia (DEST 2002) found that while most facilities in
most non-government schools were at least adequate, additional expenditure was required for areas
such as upgrading old stock, maintenance, and new construction to provide for basic and specialist
facilities, as well as new schools. The Nous Group (2011) suggested that the aesthetics and facilities
of a school have an impact on enrolments and its ability to compete in the schooling market. It
was reported that one school region managed to reduce absentee rates and reverse enrolments
decline by providing, as one of its core strategies, adequate and up-to-date infrastructure, including
amalgamating and updating facilities.
While it is not possible to make a comprehensive and objective overall assessment of the adequacy
of school facilities based on the data available, it is clear that many government schools, and some
poorly resourced non-government schools, are suffering in terms of their facilities.
Purpose Definition
Table 18: Examples of possible approaches to defining the adequacy or quality of
school infrastructure
Survey of The indicators assessed included sufficiency, condition and suitability of
Non-government infrastructure. The sufficiency indicator was based on an assessment of
Schools Infrastructure area per student. Condition was based on a condition assessment which
in Australia 2000–01 determined the cost of repair work, and its urgency in relation to continued
operation of the school. Suitability looked primarily at building age and the
availability of specialist facilities.
BERIT BER projects were assessed for value for money based on quality, time
taken to complete, and cost. The quality dimension included scores for
fitness for purpose in terms of construction quality and compliance with
relevant health and safety standards; meeting required design standards;
and compliance with agreed scope. The scope for projects mandated
prioritisation of libraries, halls, classrooms and refurbishment of existing
works in that order.
Guidelines for BGAs Decisions on funding proposals are to be made with regard to
‘appropriateness’ of the cost, size and use of the proposed facilities in
relation to sound educational planning.
iiiVictorian New Schools
Registration Guide
A school’s buildings, facilities and grounds must comply with any laws
that apply to the school including local laws and building, planning, and
occupational health and safety laws. The educational facilities of a school
must be suitable for the programs it offers and for students’ age levels.
Sources: BERIT 2011; DEEWR 2010; DEST 2002; Vctorian Registraton and Qualfications Authority 2011.
97

Finding 14
some schools.
Poor-quality school infrastructure and facilities can contribute to a decline in enrolments in
There is no national standard against which the adequacy of school facilities can be assessed.
Therefore, it is not clear whether all school facilities are appropriate to provide a high-quality
21st century education.
The adequacy of school facilities should be defined in terms of their educational value, and
the definition should be flexible to take into account differences in educational needs between
schools and changes over time.
2.4.6 The capital needs of existing schools
Maintenance and minor works
Maintenance and minor works are currently the responsibility of schools or the relevant school
system to fund from their recurrent budgets. This category of expense includes costs related to school
infrastructure which are not considered capital expenses, such as cleaning and grounds keeping,
ad hoc and scheduled maintenance, minor ICT purchases and maintenance, minor equipment
purchases, and minor facilities upgrades.
A number of submissions raised concerns around the extent to which needs relating to these issues
are being adequately met, particularly in government schools and some independent schools. Strong
anecdotal evidence suggests that many of these schools are poorly maintained, especially when
compared to non-government schools more generally. The BERIT also noted a maintenance backlog in
some schools, and observed the poor standard of some buildings.
Based on the limited information available, it is not possible to make firm conclusions about the
extent of the problem nationally. Reporting of these costs is rolled in with that of other non-staff costs,
such as consumables, so it is difficult to quantify and compare expenditure on maintenance between
schools, sectors or jurisdictions. The absence of clear national definitions makes it difficult to define
the appropriate standard to which facilities should be maintained, and to identify what would be an
adequate level of funding for these costs. The cost drivers vary enormously between schools, as
described above.
It is known from the research conducted by the review that the physical state of school buildings is a
key factor in how a school is perceived, and therefore in the types of students and staff it may attract.
Buildings that are fit for purpose are essential to maximise teaching and learning. Yet there are
currently no processes in place to ensure that school facilities are monitored, and maintenance is kept
up to date. The public does not have objective information about the quality of school infrastructure,
and thus governments are not being held to account for their decisions in this area.
The panel notes the recommendation by the BERIT that DEEWR monitors the level of backlog of school
maintenance, by education authority, and consider this in designing future capital spending programs.
Although the panel considers that DEEWR may not be the most appropriate body for this task, it does
believe there is a strong case for national leadership.
98

Major works
The Australian Government’s Capital Grants Program has an important role in supporting
non-government schools, particularly in addressing need in that sector. Funds are allocated to
Block Grant Authorities based on a combination of student enrolments and need, with 40 per cent of
the total annual funding pool allocated based on enrolment share, and 60 per cent allocated based
on the proportion of Australian Government recurrent funding received by schools (DEEWR 2010).
In addition, Block Grant Authorities are required to assess applications primarily on the basis of the
relative educational disadvantage of students at the applicant schools. Secondary factors include the
appropriateness of the cost, size and use of the facilities to be funded, the contributions of the projects
to the program’s objectives, the condition and suitability of existing facilities, the shared provision
of educational services among schools, and the extent to which the school is making adequate and
regular provision for the upkeep of its facilities.
As outlined above, state and territory governments approach major works in a variety of ways. The
role of schools and school communities in infrastructure planning is unclear, and work undertaken by
the BERIT highlighted the wide variation in school- and regional-level planning. School-level master
planning was found to be strong in the non-government sector, but weak in the government sector.
The BERIT recommended that government school systems review their approach to school master
planning and engagement of school communities in this process.
The panel supports the current Capital Grants Program, but believes the equity and cross-sectoral
planning requirements should be strengthened. More importantly, the panel considers that
enforcement and reporting of these requirements must be strengthened, to give assurance that the
equity objectives are in fact being achieved. In Chapter 2.3, the funding anomalies caused by Funding
Maintenance arrangements have been discussed. These are replicated through the current allocation
mechanism for the Capital Grants Program and this should be addressed, again to maximise the
impact on equity.
The panel is convinced that government schools need additional funding, and better planning to
bring their infrastructure up to a quality that at the very least enables them to effectively compete
with some non-government schools. Rather than short-term initiatives, the Australian Government
can best support this by extending the Capital Grants Program to the government sector. This should
be accompanied by at least maintenance of current effort by state and territory governments. An
appropriately defined funding application process and a guaranteed stream of funding could support
stronger master planning in the government sector.
The program for both the government and non-government sectors should be driven by a clear
definition of effective use of funding. As has been discussed, a clear definition is not straightforward,
but broadly speaking characteristics of effective use of funding may include:
• funding supports equity objectives
• funding targets educational need and expenditure has educational value
• sectors work together to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes for communities
• funding is used efficiently and there is no duplication of services
• the cost of individual projects is in line with market price.
A structured role for the Australian Government in infrastructure funding needs to occur in
partnership with the government and non-government school sectors, as it is important that the
involvement of systems and school communities is maximised.
99

Finding 15
In order to address deficiencies in school- and regional-level planning, government and
non-government school systems need to ensure that schools and their communities are more
involved in the development and planning of school facilities to ensure that the best design
outcomes are achieved.
The enforcement and public reporting against equity and educational objectives should ensure
that the public investment into infrastructure and capital projects is being directed towards those
schools that require the most assistance.
2.4.7 Future enrolment demands and new schools
Arrangements supporting new schools were raised by both government and non-government
stakeholders as requiring not only additional funding but coordinated planning across the three
schooling sectors.
For the Catholic and independent sectors, capital funding to support new schools in growth corridors
and new student places in existing schools emerged as a key issue. A range of options were put to
the panel on how these new places should be identified, funded and serviced. One proposal was that
new school sites be allocated to a sector on the basis of current enrolment share, so that the existing
enrolment distribution by sector is maintained. Another suggestion was that new sites and their
management be determined based on historical and projected enrolment growth patterns. A range of
strategies for compensating schools for establishment costs were also proposed, such as variations
on loan subsidy schemes, and cost sharing between sectors.
There are currently no coherent and transparent institutional or regulatory arrangements in place
at the state and territory or national level by which sectors can participate or convene to agree the
best approach to school provision. Vickers (2005) claims that Australia is unusual in lacking clear
mechanisms for adjusting the supply of school places to demographic demand, and argues that ‘the
current funding system has failed to coordinate the activities of public and private providers, leading to
duplication of provision, reductions in economies of scale, and increases in per-student costs’ (p. 264).
Each schooling sector has a different capacity for long-term planning based on their enrolment
base and projections, their financial situation, and the cohesiveness in terms of organisational
responsibilities and objectives. The government sector has the greatest capacity for long-term
planning. Catholic systems also have capacity for planning. The independent sector has less capacity
for collective planning, due to the size and diversity of the sector (Keating et al. 2011).
A lack of coordinated planning between sectors regarding new schools and enrolments can result in
the inefficient use of capital resources and a duplication of effort. The Nous Group (2011) describes
several case studies of regions where the school market has been affected by demographic
change, and how this can lead to inefficiencies. It is often claimed that non-government schools are
establishing new schools or expanding in areas where government schools have capacity to enrol
students. While school choice is an important part of Australia’s schooling system, there needs to be
greater accountability and coordinated planning by all sectors around the use of public funds in the
establishment of new schools.
A similar lack of planning arrangements existed prior to the development of the Australian
Government’s New Schools Policy in 1985. The Schools Commission advised a number of problems
stemming from this, including:
• tensions in established areas resulting from the uncoordinated growth of new places in
existing schools
100

• unclear roles of the Australian Government and the states and territories in the planning process
• inconsistencies in the rigour and extent of school registration requirements
• duplication of services absorbing resources which could be put to more efficient use (Wilkinson et
al. 2006).
The Australian Government’s New Schools Policy operated from 1985 to 1996 for prospective new
non-government schools. For part of this time existing non-government schools were also subject
to the policy if they were seeking to increase their maximum enrolment. The policy was a set of
guidelines intended to promote ‘planned educational provision’, maximise resource use and limit the
duplication of school services. The guidelines required prospective new non-government schools to
demonstrate that no adverse effects would result for schools within the proposed area. The policy
was abolished in 1996 based on a view that it limited educational choice and the establishment of a
competitive schooling system (Wilkinson et al. 2006).
The panel does not consider that a restrictive ‘New Schools Policy’ is a viable solution to the current
situation. However, it is clear to the panel that there must be some way of convening sectors, and
ensuring that decisions to establish new schools, or to close or amalgamate existing schools, are
based on sound planning for the future, are responsive to the needs of communities, and support the
efficient universal provision of education. This is discussed further in Chapter 4.3.
Finding 16
Current planning processes are not sufficient in responding effectively to changing educational
needs based on demographic and social change. There should be effective coordinated planning
between schooling sectors and at the local area level.
There needs to be an improvement in the accountability and coordinated planning by all schooling
sectors around the use of public funding in the establishment of new schools. Public investment
in new schools should take into account the needs of the community and the facilities currently
available for students.
2.4.8 Conclusion
Governments and the community invest a significant amount of funding into school buildings, facilities
and infrastructure, yet the educational value of this investment is not well understood or recorded.
It is the panel’s view that there are a number of areas where capital funding should be strengthened
to ensure that investment by governments is better directed towards those schools that require the
most assistance.
It is clear that many schools are suffering from a lack of capital investment in their current
infrastructure, which impacts on the morale of the school community, as well as its ability to compete
with neighbouring schools for new students. All levels of government need to provide greater attention
to addressing issues in these schools to ensure that the existing capital is at the very least adequate
for delivering 21st century education.
In addition to addressing issues within existing schools, it is clear that better planning is required to
ensure that new schools and school expansions are responsive to the needs of the community, but
are also measured to ensure that new schools do not impact in a negative way on established schools
within an area. The panel does not believe in restricting choice or competition but considers that the
limited public investment available should be used in a way that enhances the educational outcomes
for all students.
101

102

3 Equity and disadvantage

104

3.1 Equity in Australian schooling
Achieving greater equity in Australia’s schooling system is central to the panel’s remit—to provide
recommendations that are directed towards achieving a school funding system that is transparent, fair,
financially sustainable and effective in promoting excellent educational outcomes for all Australian
students (see Appendix A—Terms of reference).
This chapter outlines the panel’s definition of equity and considers the extent to which Australia’s
schooling system is achieving equity in educational outcomes. It discusses why equity in schooling
is important and what role funding arrangements can play in achieving both a high quality and high
equity schooling system.
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
discussed in Chapter 1.2, Australia still has some way to go in achieving this. While we are achieving
above the OECD mean in international assessments such as PISA, we are categorised as a system that
is achieving only average equity, meaning the impact of student background on educational outcomes
is stronger in Australia than it is in other OECD countries. The practical effect of this rating is that
across Australia, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are consistently achieving educational
outcomes lower than their peers.
The panel strongly supports the idea that demography must not equal destiny and is of the view that
Australia must do better to ensure genuine equality of educational opportunity for every child.
3.1.1 Defining equity
The panel has defined equity in schooling as ensuring that differences in educational outcomes are not
the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions. Equity in this sense does not mean
that all students are the same or will achieve the same outcomes. Rather, it means that all students
must have access to an acceptable international standard of education, regardless of where they live or
the school they attend.
Central to the panel’s definition of equity is the belief that the underlying talents and abilities of
students that enable them to succeed in schooling are not distributed differently among children from
different socioeconomic status, ethnic or language backgrounds, or according to where they live or go
to school. Caldwell and Spinks (2008) found that all children are capable of learning and achieving at
school in the right circumstances and with the right support. The panel supports this view.
Ensuring that all Australian children, whatever their circumstance, have access to the best possible
education and chance to realise their full potential can also be considered the moral imperative of
schooling. In countries such as Australia, this moral imperative goes beyond the legal obligation of
governments to provide the opportunity for schooling for all children that is secular, compulsory and
free. Governments must also, through addressing the facets of disadvantage, ensure that all children
are given access to an acceptable international standard of education necessary to lead successful and
productive lives.
The panel’s definition of equity is consistent with the definition adopted by the OECD in a recent study
on equity in education. According to Field, Kuczera and Pont (2007), equity in schooling involves both
fairness and inclusion. Fairness implies that personal and social circumstances are not an obstacle to
achieving educational potential. Inclusion is about ensuring a minimum standard of education for all.
Fairness and inclusion have been central to the panel’s considerations of equity.
105

The panel’s focus on improving the equity of Australia’s schooling system aligns with the broader
schooling reform agenda agreed to by all Australian governments. The Melbourne Declaration goal
that Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence for all students points to the three schooling
sectors achieving more equitable outcomes for disadvantaged students (MCEETYA 2008). The National
Education Agreement reinforces this goal, and sets out a number of outcomes and performance
indicators for Australian schooling. Among these outcomes are that young people are meeting basic
literacy and numeracy standards and overall levels of literacy and numeracy are improving, and
schooling promotes social inclusion and reduces the educational disadvantage of children, especially
Indigenous children.
The panel acknowledges the important role of all sectors in achieving greater equity in Australia’s
schooling system, and in realising the aspiration that differences in educational outcomes are not the
result of a student’s background or circumstance.
3.1.2 Equity in Australian schooling
For the 2009 PISA cycle, despite being among the top-performing countries overall, Australia was
classified as a country achieving only average equity. This means that the link between student
background and educational outcomes is more pronounced in Australia than in other comparable
high-performing OECD countries. Significantly, five out of the six countries that outperformed
Australia in the 2009 PISA assessment maintain systems that have a higher degree of equity than
Australia’s. Figure 36 shows the relationship between PISA reading literacy scores and social
background for Australia and these other high-performing countries. All have a lower social gradient
than Australia (illustrated by a flatter line), which is indicative of a weaker relationship between the
social background of students and their educational outcomes.
It should be noted that Australia’s classification as achieving average equity in the 2009 PISA
assessment is actually an improvement on its classification in 2000, where Australia was classified
a low-equity country. However, research suggests the reason for this improvement is that a smaller
number of students from high socioeconomic backgrounds are performing at the highest proficiency
levels, that is, there has been a reduction in performance at the top end (COAG Reform Council 2011).
In addition to supporting the performance of educationally disadvantaged students, Australia must
continue to focus on maintaining the performance of its highest achieving students. Australia cannot
afford to improve its social gradient line at the expense of lowering the performance of these students.
106

Review of Funding for Schooling107Figure 36: Social gradients in PISA reading literacy by country, 2009Australia Canada Finland Hong Kong-China
OECD average Shanghai-China Korea
400450500550600OECD averageKoreaShanghai-ChinaHong Kong-ChinaFinlandCanadaAustraliaAustralia CanadaMore disadvantaged Average More advantagedMean scoreSource: Reproduced from COAG Reform Council 2011 (Figure 3.4, p. 35), using OECD, PISA 2009 data.
Although no country has been able to completely remove the impact of social background or
circumstances on a student’s performance in school—and it may not be realistic to aim to do so—it is
clear that some countries are doing a better job of minimising these effects than Australia.
Research shows that high-achieving and high-equity schooling systems typically invest in building
quality and capability in school leaders and teachers. Strategic and systematic approaches are also
typically in place to attract, develop, and retain the most talented teachers, and to make sure skilled
teachers serve students of all socioeconomic backgrounds (Auguste, Kihn and Miller 2010). Countries
such as Finland have sought to continually improve their schooling systems through innovative
approaches to learning. These approaches include adapting family support services, creating
new kinds of schools, and seeking to use new technologies to promote learning (Leadbeater and
Wong 2010).
It is clear that there is considerable scope for Australia to reduce the influence of student background
on educational outcomes. Shifting Australia’s social gradient line more closely to a country like Canada
would constitute a major improvement in the equity of educational outcomes. Research commissioned
by the panel indicates that a focus on shortening Australia’s ‘underperforming tail’ by 10 per cent
would bring it halfway to closing the performance gap with Canada (The Nous Group 2011).
3.1.3 Why equity is important
As discussed in Chapter 1.2, the broader benefits of education are significant for individuals,
communities and economies. Beyond these benefits, there are a range of reasons why a highly
equitable schooling system is desirable.
Maintaining a fair and inclusive education system is one of the most powerful levers available to make
society more equitable (Field, Kuczera and Pont 2007). There is also a human rights imperative for all
people to be able to develop their capacities and participate fully in society. The long-term social and

financial costs of not maintaining a fair and inclusive education system are also high, in that people
without the skills to participate socially and economically generate higher costs for countries (Field,
Kuczera and Pont 2007; The Nous Group 2011). Individuals that fail to acquire basic competencies
early on are more likely to require additional (and potentially expensive) intervention in later years,
and are also at higher risk of not attaining a Year 12 or equivalent qualification. Individuals with lower
education levels typically have higher unemployment risks and less stable jobs (Field, Kuczera and
Pont 2007).
The OECD maintains that the major focus of education policy should be to foster high overall levels of
student achievement, while limiting the influence of student background on learning outcomes and
achieving a high level of equity. They argue that inequity in education systems is problematic because it
demonstrates a failure to fully capitalise on the cognitive potential of students (OECD 2007).
Evidence shows that strengthening equity in education can be cost beneficial. International research
shows that returns to educational investments are higher in early, primary and secondary education,
due to their effects on facilitating later learning and participation in the workforce. It also shows
that the returns to educational investments are particularly high for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds, whose home environments may not provide them with the foundation skills necessary
to prosper at later educational stages (Woessmann 2008 cited in OECD 2011d). Chiu and Khoo (2005)
argue that the law of diminishing marginal returns can be applied to schooling, whereby additional
money invested is likely to increase the outcomes of a student from a low socioeconomic background
more than one from a high socioeconomic background.
This research demonstrates that investing as early as possible in high-quality education for all
students, and directing additional resources towards the most disadvantaged students, is a
cost-efficient strategy that will have the greatest impact on improving overall performance.
3.1.4 What we are seeking to achieve
The primary aim of this review is to ensure schools are appropriately resourced to provide an
internationally acceptable standard of education for all students. Over and above this the panel
has identified a clear focus on achieving greater equity in Australia’s schooling system by ensuring
that schools are appropriately resourced to cater for the individual and collective needs of
disadvantaged students.
In order to achieve greater equity Australia must place emphasis on addressing current
underperformance in the most disadvantaged schools. Australia must focus on lifting the performance
of students at the tail end. Much of the current underperformance is a result of factors associated
with student background. Australia also has a high concentration of disadvantaged students in certain
schools, with a large number of the most disadvantaged schools in the government sector (see
Chapters 1.1 and 3.2). It is these disadvantaged students and schools that must be targeted if the
equity of educational outcomes is to be improved.
Figure 37 shows that in 2009, 14 per cent of Australian students failed to meet the PISA baseline
proficiency level in reading literacy (Level 2). Further, in the government sector some 19 per cent of all
government school students failed to meet this baseline (The Nous Group 2011). These students failed
to acquire the most basic reading literacy skills considered necessary to participate successfully in
future schooling and life. As outlined above, this can have significant consequences for the individuals
involved, but also significantly, demonstrates that our education system is failing to fully capitalise on
the cognitive potential of these students.
108

Level 1b Level 1a
0 5 10 15 20
Australia
Canada
Finland
iii).
iiiiFigure 37: Percentage of underperforming students in PISA reading literacy, 2009
Below Level 1
United Kingdom
Note: Graph represents proporton of students not acheving the proficiency baseline in PISA reading lteracy 2009 (Level 1 or belowLevel 1a = from 334.75 to less than 407.47 score ponts. Level 1b = from 262.04 to less than 334.75 score ponts.
Source: Reproduced from The Nous Group 2011, Schoolng challenges and opportunties, Figures 7 and 32, using OECD, PISA 2009 data.
3.1.5 The role of funding arrangements in achieving greater equity
The structure of schooling systems and school funding arrangements can facilitate, or hinder, equity.
Field, Kuczera and Pont (2007) suggest that in order to promote equity, expenditure in education
should be targeted to schools most in need of support within a schooling system, so that minimum
standards of achievement are met everywhere. They also suggest that funding arrangements should
promote transparency and accountability by funding recipients, particularly government and
non-government school systems, for the allocation of resources so that the impact of addressing
inequity and improving educational outcomes can be measured.
While funding arrangements play a critical role in improving equity in educational outcomes,
allocating the right level of resources in the right places is only part of the challenge. Of equal
importance is ensuring that additional resources are used in the most educationally effective ways.
The key to achieving greater equity in schooling therefore lies not only in an increased investment in
disadvantaged schools and students, but also in ensuring additional resources are used to employ
strategies in a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable manner. These strategies will be discussed
in more detail in Chapter 3.4.
109

3.1.6 Conclusion
While Australia is considered to be a high-performing country, the impact of student background on
educational outcomes is stronger in Australia than in other OECD countries. The cost of this inequity
is high; both for individuals who are failing to reach their potential and for the nation as a whole.
Countries such as Finland and Canada demonstrate it is possible to maintain a high-performing
and high-equity schooling system. International evidence confirms that targeted investment in
disadvantaged students is the most cost-efficient way to improve the overall equity of educational
outcomes being achieved by a country. Australia must strive to achieve greater equity in its schooling
system, and ensure that demography does not equal destiny for students.
In Part 4 of this report, the panel outlines funding arrangements that aim to ensure that all Australian
children have access to an internationally acceptable standard of education, regardless of their
background or the school they attend. Over and above this, the panel’s proposed funding arrangements
aim to steadily, over time, reduce the relationship between student background and educational
outcomes and improve the overall equity of educational outcomes in Australia.
Finding 17


New funding arrangements for schooling should aim to ensure that:
differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power
or possessions
all students have access to a high standard of education regardless of their background or
circumstances.
110

3.2 The impact of disadvantage on outcomes
This chapter discusses the factors of disadvantage that have been proven to have a significant impact
on educational outcomes in Australia. It also discusses the individual, compound and concentrated
effects of disadvantage, and how these have been key considerations for the panel in developing its
new funding model.
As demonstrated in Chapter 3.1, the relationship between student background and educational
outcomes is stronger in Australia than in other OECD countries with high-performing schooling
systems. Over and above ensuring that all schools are appropriately resourced to provide an
internationally acceptable standard of education for all students, the panel has identified a clear focus
on achieving greater equity in Australian schooling. In order to achieve greater equity, schools must be
appropriately resourced to cater for the individual and collective needs of disadvantaged students and
be empowered and enabled to use these resources effectively.
Factors of disadvantage
Research and data confirm that there are five factors of disadvantage that have a significant
impact on educational outcomes in Australia. At the student level these factors are socioeconomic
status, Indigeneity, English language proficiency, and disability. At the school level, remoteness is
demonstrated to have an impact on student outcomes.
While there are other groups of young people that may also experience educational disadvantage, the
available evidence supports a focus on these five factors. Representations and submissions to the
review also supported a focus on these groups of students.
Historically, Australian Government and state and territory government funding arrangements for
schooling have provided additional resources for identified ‘equity groups’. However, increasingly
sophisticated data available at the state and territory level on student characteristics and outcomes
are demonstrating that not all members of traditional equity groups are equally disadvantaged in an
educational sense. The availability of these data means there are now better ways of identifying and
defining students and schools in need of extra assistance. In order to develop funding arrangements
that will steadily reduce the relationship between student background and educational outcomes, the
panel set out to better understand the complex interactions between these factors.
There are large variations in student outcomes within the types of disadvantage set out above as well
as complex interactions between them, both at the individual and school level. For example, there is
enormous variation in individual performance across measures of socioeconomic status. There is a
correlation between students’ socioeconomic background and their performance, but not all students
fit the trend. In terms of interactions between factors of disadvantage, many students experience
multiple factors, sometimes referred to as compound disadvantage. These students are at an even
higher risk of poor academic performance, and require more intensive support to reach their full
educational potential.
There is also a growing body of evidence that demonstrates that the composition of a school’s
population has a significant impact on the outcomes achieved by all students at the school. This is
particularly significant in Australia in light of evidence that some parts of the schooling system are
becoming increasingly stratified according to socioeconomic status.
111

Disadvantage and school readiness
Children arrive at school with existing differences in learning capabilities and levels of preparedness.
The Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) is a population measure of young children’s
development. It measures five key areas of early childhood development which are closely linked to the
predictors of good adult health, education and social outcomes: physical health and wellbeing, social
competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive skills, and communication skills and general
knowledge (Centre for Community Child Health and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research 2009).
Figure 38: Proportion of children developmentally vulnerable on two or
more AEDI domains
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Per cent
Quintile 5
Quintile 4
Quintile3
Quintile 2
Quintile1
Major cities
egional
egional
Remote
Very remote
Indigenous
Indigenous
oficient inEnglish
oficientin English
Inner r
Outer r
Not pr
Pr
Non-
Indigenous
Nationally, 11.8 per cent of children are developmentally vulnerable on two or more domains
(a) Based on the ABS Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas.
(b) Based on the ABS Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Areas.
(c) For the AEDI, children are considered LBOTE if they speak a language other than English.
Source: Centre for Community Child Health and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research 2009.
AEDI data confirm that educationally disadvantaged students are more likely to be developmentally
vulnerable when they arrive at school than their peers. Figure 38 shows that children living in the most
socioeconomically disadvantaged and remote Australian communities, as well as Indigenous children
and children who are not proficient in English, are far more likely to be developmentally vulnerable on
two or more of the AEDI domains. Children who are developmentally vulnerable on two or more of the
AEDI domains are also more likely to have difficulty learning (Hart, Brinkman and Blackmore 2003).
Evidence supports the importance of early intervention to help these students as it is more effective to
address underperformance early, before poor academic performance becomes entrenched. Therefore,
strategies to address educational disadvantage in schools must be integrated with approaches to
support early childhood development, to help ensure that disadvantaged students arrive at school with
the skills and capabilities they require to participate in schooling.
112

Finding 18
Strategies to address educational disadvantage in school are most effective when integrated with,
and complementary to, approaches to support early childhood development.
3.2.1 Low socioeconomic status
An increasing body of literature examining the relationship between education and socioeconomic
status demonstrates that it is a key factor shaping the educational outcomes of Australian students. It
is important to note there is currently no nationally consistent approach to identifying these students
(see Box 6).
4
Box 6: Measuring the socioeconomic status of students
There are different ways that socioeconomic status can be measured, whether it is a single
indicator, or combining several indicators to form an index. The socioeconomic status of
dependent school-aged children is derived by the socioeconomic characteristics of their parents,
including parental occupational status, parental education and family wealth or income.
Internationally, PISA measures the socioeconomic background of students from all participating
countries using an index of economic, social and cultural status. The index is based on student
responses to questions about a student’s family and home background. Using this index,
participating students are distributed into quartiles of socioeconomic background representing a
scale of relative disadvantage (bottom quartile) through to relative advantage (top quartile).
In Australia, the ICSEA provides a scale that represents the influence of a number of factors
associated with students’ family backgrounds on their educational outcomes. ICSEA values are
reported for schools on the My School website, to allow comparisons to be made in terms of
NAPLAN results between schools serving similar student populations (see Box 5, Chapter 2.3).
The socio-educational advantage (SEA) measure reflects the socio-educational background of
students. It is calculated using components of the ICSEA, and is based on the parental occupation
and education status of parents. The My School website shows the distribution of students in a
school across four SEA quarters, representing a scale of relative disadvantage (bottom quarter)
through to relative advantage (top quarter).
The COAG Reform Council’s report for 2010 on progress towards meeting the National Education
Agreement targets found that the performance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds
continues to be of concern (COAG Reform Council 2011). Achievement in NAPLAN from 2008 to 2010
demonstrates that lower levels of parental education are strongly and consistently associated with
lower student performance, and this holds across all the year levels tested (Years 3, 5, 7 and 9).
This relationship is illustrated in Figure 39. Based on these data, parental attainment of a Year 12 or
equivalent qualification seems to be a threshold qualification, below which the reading and numeracy
achievement of students is significantly lower.
4 The My School website reports SEA quarter data for schools covering 98 per cent of all students. However, depending on the availability
and quality of the data, it may come from different sources. Due to data collection issues, the panel acknowledges that there are some
limitations when using the SEA at an individual school level.
113

Figure 39: Achievement in NAPLAN 2010 reading by parental education
Mean scale scores
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
Yr 3 Reading Yr 5 Reading Yr 7 Reading Yr 9 Reading
Parental education
Year 11
Year 12
Certificate
Diploma
Bachelor
Source: ACARA 2010b, NAPLAN achievement in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy: National report for 2010.
Results from the 2009 PISA assessment indicate that across all literacy domains, the higher the level
of student socioeconomic background, the higher the student performance. Figure 40 demonstrates
that that one in four Australian students from the lowest quartile of PISA’s index of economic, social
and cultural status performed below the proficiency baseline across each of the PISA domains
(Thomson et al. 2011). This confirms that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are
disproportionately represented in Australia’s ‘underperforming tail’.
Further, in relation to the reading literacy domain, the gap between Australian students from the
highest and lowest economic, social and cultural status quartiles was found to be equivalent to almost
three years of schooling. In addition, the average performance of Australian students from the lowest
quartile is significantly lower than the OECD average (Thomson et al. 2011).
Low socioeconomic status also has an impact at the post-school level, with students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds being less likely to attain a Year 12 or equivalent qualification. In 2009,
Year 12 attainment rates for students from low and medium socioeconomic backgrounds were 56 and
62 per cent respectively, compared to 75 per cent for students from high socioeconomic backgrounds
(Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2011b). Students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds are also less likely to attend university (Bradley Report). In 2010, the
university access rate5 for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds was around 17 per cent,
compared with 35 per cent for students from high socioeconomic backgrounds (DEEWR 2011b).
5 Access rates refer to the proportion of a certain equity group of the total number of students commencing university.
114

Figure 40: Proficiency levels in PISA reading, mathematical and science literacy in
Australia by ESCS, 2009
Per cent
Top quartile 4 11 25 33 27
Third quartile 8 17 30 28 17
Second quartile
Science literacy
13 24 3123 9
Bottom quartile 23 28 29 15 5
Top quartile 5 11 24 29 30
Third quartile
literacyMathematical11 19 27 25 20Second quartile 17 23 28 2111
Bottom quartile 28 28 25137
Top quartile 5 12 26 33 24
Third quartile 9 18 30 28 15
Second quartile
Reading literacy15 23 32 22 8
Bottom quartile 24 29 28 15 5
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Source: Reproduced from Thomson et al. 2011, using OECD, PISA 2009 data.
3.2.2 Indigeneity
Closing the gap in the health, education and employment outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians has been a central policy aim of successive governments over many years. Under the
National Education Agreement, all governments have committed to halving the gap for Indigenous
students in reading, writing and numeracy within a decade, and at least halving the gap for Indigenous
students in Year 12 attainment rates by 2020 (see Chapter 1.2). The Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Education Action Plan 2010–2014 outlines a framework of outcomes, performance indicators
and actions to improve educational outcomes and achieve these targets.
While early evidence suggests that these initiatives are having some success, progress is being made
slowly and is not consistent across the states and territories. In their 2010 progress report, the COAG
Reform Council (2011) indicated it may be difficult to meet targets set out in the National Education
Agreement given some states and territories failed to meet their progress points in each domain
and year.
2010 NAPLAN data confirms that across all year levels, on average, Indigenous students achieve lower
mean scores than their non-Indigenous peers, as illustrated in Figure 41.
115

Figure 41: Indigenous and non-Indigenous student NAPLAN performance,
Years 3, 5, 7 and 9, 2010
Mean scale scores
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
Year 3 Year 5 Year 7 Year 9
Indigenous
Non-Indigenous
Note: Mean scale score refers to achievement across the five NAPLAN domains of reading, writing, spelling, grammar and punctuation,
and numeracy.
Source: Adapted from MCEECDYA 2011b, using data from ACARA 2010b.
2009 PISA results also confirm that the mean outcomes of Indigenous students are significantly
lower than their non-Indigenous peers, and are also lower than the OECD average. The difference
in mean scores between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students was estimated to be equivalent to
approximately two full years of schooling (Thomson et al. 2011).
A significant factor contributing to these outcomes is that Indigenous students continue to experience
lower-than-average attendance rates in all year levels and across all sectors (COAG Reform Council
2011). In some states and territories the gap can be as large as 21 percentage points in primary school
years and 30 percentage points in secondary school years. Between 2007 and 2010, Year 10 Indigenous
school attendance rates declined in all states and territories and there were no improvements in Years
8 and 9 (COAG Reform Council 2011).
Research consistently demonstrates that attendance is a major influence on Indigenous student
academic achievement, particularly if the level of attendance is below 90 per cent, meaning students
are absent from school more than one day in a fortnight (Zubrick et al. 2005, cited in Purdie and
Buckley 2010).
Indigenous Australians also continue to have lower rates of Year 12 or equivalent attainment. In 2008,
around 45 per cent of 20 to 24 year-old Indigenous people attained a Year 12 or equivalent qualification,
compared with 85 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians, as illustrated in Figure 42.
116

Figure 42: Proportion of the 20 to 24 year-old population with Year 12 or equivalent
attainment, by Indigenous status, by state and territory, 2008
Per cent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust (a)
Indigenous
Non-Indigenous
(a) Australia includes ‘other territories’.
Source: Reproduced from COAG Reform Council 2010a, National Education Agreement: Performance report for 2009 (Figure 7.6, p. 96),
using ABS 2008, Education and Work, Australia, May 2008, cat. no.6227.0; ABS 2009, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Social Survey, 2008, cat. no. 4714.0.
There are also large differences in Indigenous Year 12 attainment levels across jurisdictions, with
58 per cent of Indigenous students achieving Year 12 or an equivalent qualification in Victoria,
compared with only 24 per cent in the Northern Territory. Indigenous Australians are also vastly
under-represented in higher education (Bradley Report). In 2010, of all commencing university
students, only 2 per cent were Indigenous (DEEWR 2011b).
3.2.3 English language proficiency
Traditionally, LBOTE students have been considered an equity group requiring additional resources
within Australia’s schooling system. However, recent evidence confirms that not all LBOTE students
can be considered educationally disadvantaged.
NAPLAN and PISA results demonstrate that there is a high degree of variability, with some students
achieving well and some performing poorly. Performance within this group differs depending on the
language background of the students, and is also strongly influenced by level of English language
proficiency (see Box 7).
117

Box 7: Measuring disadvantage within the LBOTE category
According to the MCEECDYA nationally agreed definition, students classify as LBOTE if the
language spoken at home by the child is not English, or if one or both parents speak another
language at home. Not all LBOTE learners have English language needs. Some of these students
were born in Australia, or came at a young age, and have developed native speaker proficiency
in English. The limitations of the LBOTE definition as a measure of educational disadvantage are
generally acknowledged. It is deficient in the extent to which it masks the complexity of language
background, culture and ethnicity and its effects on schooling outcomes.
‘English as a second language’ (ESL) is a narrower term and forms a subset of LBOTE students.
ESL students are students whose first language is not English and who speak a language
other than English in the home. ESL students are more likely to experience disadvantage in the
Australian education context where curriculums are generally taught in English.
In April 2009, MCEECDYA asked ACARA to develop a LBOTE measure that better identifies
student need. ACARA’s modelling showed that there is considerable variation in performance
across the different language groups within the LBOTE community. It also showed that students
who performed poorly were more likely to have parents who had lower school education levels.
As a result, an additional variable, the percentage of parents in the school community who
were both LBOTE and completed to Year 9 or equivalent, was included in the calculation of the
2010 ICSEA values. This additional variable is referred to as the ‘disadvantaged LBOTE’ variable
(ACARA 2011).
While it is generally acknowledged that ACARA’s disadvantaged LBOTE variable is not a perfect
measure of need within the broader LBOTE category, it is the only nationally consistent measure
currently available. At the state level, jurisdictions are better able to measure English language
proficiency within the LBOTE category based on their own data collected through enrolment
processes, annual ESL surveys and classroom assessments.
As outlined above, there is a growing body of evidence available at the state level that paints a
clearer picture about which students within the broader LBOTE group are at the highest risk of poor
performance. According to student data collected by state and territory education departments at the
time of enrolment, the strongest predictor of poor performance within the LBOTE category is a lack of
English language proficiency.
Analysis undertaken by the New South Wales Department of Education and Communities (NSW DEC)
illustrates this point. NSW DEC investigated the impact of three indicators within the broad LBOTE
category on educational outcomes, including: level of English proficiency (broken down into three
phases); refugee status (as determined by residency status and visa subclass as declared at the time
of enrolment); and length of time in an Australian school (determined by the first entry date in an
Australian school, as declared at the time of enrolment).
The results of this analysis show that in New South Wales, after controlling for the effect of
students’ parental background and school-level effects, LBOTE students with limited English
language proficiency experience twice the level of disadvantage as those who are refugees or who
are Indigenous. However, by far the most disadvantaged group are refugee students who have
limited English language proficiency and have been in an Australian school for more than one year
(NSW DEC 2011a), as illustrated in Figure 43.
118

Figure 43: Impact of LBOTE-related measures on 2009 NAPLAN results
Key disadvantaged groups Relative effect
Impact on average
NAPLAN results (in bands)
IndigenousRefugee
-0.443
-0.463
3 quarters of a band
3 quarters of a band
ESL Phase 1 -0.901 1 and a half bands
Refugee, ESL Phase 1 and newly arrived -1.807 3 bands
iii
()
Source: Reproduced from NSW DEC 2011a, NSW Department of Education and Communties discussion paper: Australan school fundng
arrangementsp. 9, using NAPLAN 2009 data and 2009 enrolment data.
This finding is consistent with the AEDI data presented at the beginning of this chapter, which
demonstrate that 94 per cent of children who have LBOTE status and are not proficient in English are
developmentally vulnerable on one or more of the AEDI domains, and 59 per cent are developmentally
vulnerable on two or more (Centre for Community Child Health and Telethon Institute for Child Health
Research 2009).
3.2.4 Students with disability
While students with disability often require additional assistance to access and participate in
schooling, there are significant differences in the educational needs of students within this cohort.
This is a reflection of the diverse range of students with disability, as well as the diverse way in which
disability manifests itself.
In 2010, there were around 172 300 students who met state and territory eligibility criteria for
receiving disability funding, representing 4.9 per cent of total student enrolments. There are differing
percentages of funded students with disability in each state and territory (between 3 and 8 per cent),
which is largely due to differing definitions, with some definitions adopted by states and territories
broader than others (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2011b).
The 2009 survey data shows that 8.8 per cent of people in Australia aged 5 to 14 years had a disability,
based on a broader definition of disability (ABS 2010a).
Most funded students with disability attend mainstream schools. It is estimated around 9 per cent of
students with disability aged 5 to 14 years attend special schools (AIHW 2006). There are currently
416 special schools, 332 of which are government schools (ABS 2011c).
119

Disability
Box 8: Key policies relating to people with disability in Australia
Australian school systems and individual schools and are required to comply with the
Discrimination Act 1992 which provides protection against discrimination based on disability and
requires that students with disability receive the same educational opportunities as everyone
else. The Disability Standards for Education (DSE), introduced in 2005, set out the roles and
responsibilities of education providers in meeting the requirements of the Act.
Under the DSE, education providers are required to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to ensure
that students participate in schooling on an equal basis to other students. Reasonable
adjustment is defined under the DSE as educational delivery or support that differs from what is
provided to meet the normal needs of a student of that age or level. In determining the particular
adjustments that are reasonably required, education providers must consider the nature and
impact of the student’s disability and how it affects the student’s ability to participate, while
balancing the interests of all parties affected, including the student with disability, the education
provider, staff and other students. A review of the DSE is currently underway and expected to be
complete by the end of 2011.
Australia also has a National Disability Strategy in place, which is overseen by COAG and
specifies that increasing the educational outcomes of students with disability, including
the Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates, is a priority for all Australian governments. The
National Disability Strategy identifies learning and skills as an area of policy action, including
strengthening the capability of all education providers to deliver inclusive high-quality
educational programs and a focus on reducing the gap between students with disability and
other students.
As outlined above, education providers in all sectors are required by law to make reasonable
educational adjustments for students with disability so that they can participate in schooling on the
same basis as students without disability (see Box 8). There are significant differences in the levels of
adjustment required for students with disability. Not all disabilities limit the educational achievement
of students. Some students with disability may not require any adjustment. Other students, with
minor or more significant educational adjustment, can achieve the same outcomes as students
without disability.
However, there are some children who have complex support needs and whose development or
physical health may impact on the outcomes that can be achieved in school. For these students, level
of achievement may be more focused on promoting and achieving physical and emotional wellbeing,
being able to communicate, and staying safe.
There is currently limited nationally consistent data on the number and location of students with
disability in schools, their educational needs, the level of educational adjustments that are being
provided, and the educational outcomes of students with disability as a specific group.
While students with significant intellectual or complex disabilities are exempt from NAPLAN testing,
the remaining students in the disability cohort are encouraged to participate. However, there is no
national school-based data collection mechanism (such as the methods used by ACARA to collect
data for the My School website) for these students. Moves are underway to report the outcomes of
students with disability as a subgroup of a school’s population on the My School website, but a common
way of identifying students with disability must be adopted by the states and territories before this
can happen.
120

Research demonstrates that students with disability are less likely to complete Year 12. In 2009,
approximately 30 per cent of people aged 15 to 64 years with a reported disability had completed
Year 12, and 15 per cent had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. This compares to 55 per cent
and 24 per cent for people without disabilities respectively (ABS 2010a).
This comparative lack of educational attainment has a negative effect on the employment prospects
and level of income for people with disability. In 2009, the unemployment rate for people aged 15 to 64
with reported disabilities was 7.8 per cent, compared to 5.1 per cent for those with no reported
disabilities. The median gross personal income per week for people aged 15 to 64 with reported
disabilities was $306, compared to $614 for those with no reported disabilities (ABS 2010a). There are
also greater levels of welfare dependence among people with reported disabilities.
Model for collecting nationally consistent data on students with disability
Progressing a nationally consistent approach to identifying students with disability, including
measuring the level of educational adjustment of these students, is a priority of Australian
governments.
In 2008, COAG agreed to work towards a nationally consistent approach to identifying students with
disability. In January 2011, a national steering committee was established to govern the trial of the
national model to identify school students with disability. The committee included representatives of
all state and territory education authorities, representatives from the Catholic and independent school
sectors, ACARA and DEEWR.
The trial was conducted in 149 schools,6 including six special schools, during the period
May to July 2011 and involved over 7500 students. The trial set out to determine the number of
students with a diagnosed disability, and the extent of adjustments taken by a school to assist these
students to access and participate in education on the same basis as students without disability
(Pricewaterhouse Coopers 2011).
The national model consists of four disability categories (physical, cognitive, sensory and
social/emotional) and four adjustment categories (extensive, substantial, supplementary or no
adjustments).
The trial of the national model found that around 4 per cent of students with a diagnosed disability
needed no educational adjustment to participate in education on the same basis as students without
disability. Other students (around 60 per cent) required supplementary adjustments, 25 per cent
required substantial adjustments, and 10 per cent required extensive adjustments. These percentages
applied to students with disability in mainstream schools (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2011).
3.2.5 Remoteness
The location of schools in Australia can be classified within one of four groups: metropolitan,
provincial, remote and very remote, as determined by MCEECDYA. The remoteness of a school is a
well-known factor that impacts on student outcomes, and the most recent data confirm that this is
the case.
NAPLAN results from 2010 show that students in remote and very remote schools are consistently
outperformed by students attending metropolitan schools. While 92 per cent of metropolitan students
performed at or above the national minimum standard of achievement in Year 9 reading,
6 The participating schoovls were selected by education authorities to be representative of the government, Catholic and independent
sectors.
121

79 per cent of remote students, and only 45 per cent of very remote students, performed at this level.
Figure 44 illustrates these results and highlights that the performance of very remote students is of
particular concern. More than half of these students achieve at Band 5 and below, which is below the
minimum standard. In remote and very remote areas, these results may also reflect the impact of low
socioeconomic and Indigenous factors.
Figure 44: 2010 Year 9 NAPLAN reading scores by location
Per cent
Metro 6.5 17.1 27.2 27.615.24.8
Provincial 8.8 20.4 29.4 25.7 11.6 2.6
Remote 19.8 25.6 27.218.1 6.8 1.2
Very remote 53.3 21.2 13.4 7.52.4 0.5
Band 5 and below
Exempt
Band 6
Band 7
Band 8
Band 9
Band 10
Source: Reproduced from The Nous Group 2011, Schooling challenges and opportunities, Figure 25, using ACARA, NAPLAN 2010 data.
An analysis of mean 2010 NAPLAN scores conducted by MCEECDYA’s Strategic Policy Working Group
further demonstrates this trend. The analysis reveals that average reading scores decrease with
distance from metropolitan centres and that this trend holds across all year levels.
Other data sources confirm a disparity in outcomes according to student location, with 2009 PISA
results showing the gap between 15 year-olds in metropolitan schools and remote schools across all
domains is equivalent to 1.5 years of schooling (Thomson et al. 2011).
Non-metropolitan students also have lower rates of Year 12 attainment, as well as lower rates of
transition to university. In 2010, 81 per cent of young adults aged 20 to 24 years from major cities
attained Year 12, compared to 67 per cent of students from inner or outer regional areas and
64 per cent of students from remote or very remote areas (ABS 2011a).
Finding 19
The key dimensions of disadvantage that are having a significant impact on educational
performance in Australia are socioeconomic status, Indigeneity, English language proficiency,
disability and school remoteness.
122

3.2.6 The compound effect of disadvantage
Above and beyond the impact of individual factors of disadvantage on educational outcomes, evidence
confirms there are also complex interactions between these factors. Many Australian students
experience multiple factors of disadvantage and it is these students whom data confirm are at the
highest risk of poor performance. In their assessment of funding approaches for disadvantaged
students, the Australian Council for Educational Research noted that ‘in addition to specific groups (of
disadvantaged students) an ongoing challenge for schooling is to put in place mechanisms that can
deliver adequate resources for students with multiple disadvantages’ (ACER 2011, p. 71).
The interaction between Indigeneity, low socioeconomic status and attending school in a remote or
very remote location is particularly strong in Australia. While compound disadvantage is not something
that is experienced exclusively by Indigenous students, research confirms that Indigenous students are
over-represented in all categories of disadvantage.
Indigenous students are over-represented in the lowest socioeconomic quartiles of PISA’s index of
economic, social and cultural status, and conversely are under-represented in the highest quartiles.
The percentage of Indigenous students in remote and very remote schools is also higher than
non-Indigenous students.
The educational outcomes achieved by Indigenous students who live in very remote locations are
of particular concern. According to 2010 NAPLAN data, the compound effect of these factors is so
large that Indigenous students living in very remote areas for all domains and year levels performed,
on average, below the mean score of Year 3 non-Indigenous metropolitan students (DEEWR
administrative data 2011).
AEDI data show that 22 per cent of Indigenous children speak a language other than English in the
home, which is a similar level to non-Indigenous students (Centre for Community Child Health and
Telethon Institute for Child Health Research 2009). However, Indigenous languages were much more
likely to be spoken as a first language by Indigenous people living in remote and very remote areas.
More than half of the Indigenous population living in very remote localities speak an Indigenous
language as their first language at home (56 per cent), compared with only 1 per cent of those living in
major cities (ABS 2010d).
Indigenous students are also more likely to have a disability that affects their learning. For example,
Indigenous children living in remote communities have a high rate of the middle ear disorder
otitis media. In 2009, 74 per cent of Indigenous children who had a Northern Territory Emergency
Response audiology check had at least one middle ear condition, and 54 per cent had some hearing
loss (Department of Health and Ageing unpublished, cited in Steering Committee for the Review of
Government Service Provision 2011a).
Finding 20
There are complex interactions between factors of disadvantage, and students who experience
multiple factors are at a higher risk of poor performance.
123

3.2.7 Concentrations of disadvantage
Concentrations of disadvantage in Australian schools
When compared to other high-performing OECD countries, Australia’s schooling system is
characterised by a strong concentration of disadvantaged students in certain schools, and conversely,
a strong concentration of advantaged students in other schools. Australia also has a relatively low
proportion of students who attend schools with average or mixed socioeconomic backgrounds.
Research commissioned by the panel found that one-third of all Australian schools serve a
student population where the average socioeconomic background of students is below the national
average. Further, within these schools, the majority of students are from the lowest socioeconomic
backgrounds (58 per cent), with much smaller proportions of students from middle (32 per cent) and
high (just 11 per cent) socioeconomic backgrounds (The Nous Group 2011).
In submissions to the review, several key stakeholders, including some state and territory education
departments, supported this finding. These stakeholders noted that some government schools are
becoming increasingly characterised by high numbers of disadvantaged students (see Chapter 1.1).
Research demonstrates that concentrations of disadvantage at the school level accentuate
underperformance. Concentrations of disadvantage have been demonstrated not only to impact
on student performance, but also to impact on teacher morale and community alienation from the
school, and result in difficulties in attracting and retaining good teachers and students. As a school’s
reputation worsens, it is argued that more parents send their children elsewhere, and hence the cycle
continues.
Researchers Perry and McConney (2010) found there are multiple ways in which schools with high
concentrations of disadvantaged students differ from schools with high concentrations of students
from more advantaged backgrounds. These include less material and social resources, more
behavioural problems, less experienced teachers, lower student and family aspirations, less positive
relationships between teachers and students, less homework and a less rigorous curriculum.
The impact of concentration of disadvantage on educational outcomes
Many international studies, as well as research using PISA and NAPLAN data, confirm that
concentrations of students from certain socioeconomic groups within a school has a strong impact on
the educational outcomes achieved by all students at the school. Importantly, research also suggests
that this impact is more significant than the effect of an individual student’s own socioeconomic status
on outcomes.
In Australia, analysis of NAPLAN data confirm that the effect of school socioeconomic status is
significant and exists across the socioeconomic spectrum. Analysis conducted by MCEECDYA’s
Strategic Policy Working Group (MCEECDYA 2011b) confirms that the socioeconomic status
of a school affects the performance of individuals within that school, irrespective of their own
socioeconomic status.
Figure 45 demonstrates that for Year 3 students, average performance improves as socioeconomic
status rises (the dotted lines). It also demonstrates that while an individual student’s socioeconomic
status does affect their performance, the average socioeconomic status of the school they attend also
affects their performance (the solid lines).
124

Figure 45: Year 3 students by SES quarter and school SES quarter
Mean scale scores
470
450
430
410
390
370
350
12 4
School SES quartile 3
Student Q1 Average Q1 students Student Q3 Average Q3 students
Student Q2 Average Q2 students Student Q4 Average Q4 students
Note: Mean scale score refers to the average of students’ reading and numeracy scores in NAPLAN over 2009 and 2010.
This work is the subject of further review. Caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions about the relative correlations of
individual variables underpinning the analysis.
Source: MCEECDYA Strategic Policy Working Group 2011b, unpublished data.
These results were found to hold across all year levels examined (Years 3, 5, 7 and 9) which led
the Strategic Policy Working Group to conclude that ‘school concentrations of high socioeconomic
status students appear to be a valuable resource in terms of individual student performance, while
concentrations of low socioeconomic status students are a disadvantage’ (MCEECDYA 2011b, p. 9).
Based on analysis of 2003 PISA results, Perry and McConney (2010) have also demonstrated that all
students, regardless of their personal socioeconomic status, benefit strongly and relatively equally
from schooling contexts in which the socioeconomic status of the school group is high. Similarly, all
students, regardless of their personal socioeconomic status, perform considerably less well in schools
that cater for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
There is also evidence demonstrating that concentrations of other factors, such as Indigeneity, have
similar impacts on educational outcomes. Analysis of NAPLAN data undertaken by the Strategic
Policy Working Group indicates that Indigenous student performance is directly influenced by the
level of concentration of Indigenous students in the school, and that the higher the concentration of
Indigenous students, the lower their average scores, as illustrated in Figure 46.
125

Figure 46: Average performance of Year 3 Indigenous students by concentration of
Indigenous students in schools
Mean scale scores
370
360
350
340
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
< 2.25% 2.26% to 5.49% 5.50% to 13.04% > 13.05%
Average performance score
Note: Mean scale score refers to the average of students’ reading and numeracy scores in NAPLAN over 2009 and 2010.
This work is the subject of further review. Caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions about the relative correlations of
individual variables underpinning the analysis.
Source: MCEECDYA Strategic Policy Working Group 2011b, unpublished data.
It should be noted that high concentrations of some groups of students do not appear to have
a negative impact on educational outcomes. A concentration of English as a second language
students, for example, has been found to have a positive impact on predicted mathematics scores
(The Nous Group 2011).
Finding 21
Increased concentration of disadvantaged students in certain schools is having a significant
impact on educational outcomes, particularly, but not only, in the government sector.
Concentrations of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous students have
the most significant impact on educational outcomes.
3.2.8 Conclusion
The factors that are having a significant impact on the educational outcomes of students in Australia
are socioeconomic status, Indigeneity, a lack of English language proficiency, disability and school
remoteness. The panel acknowledges that there are large variations in student performance
within these groups, and in some cases has found that further work needs to be done to develop
nationally consistent measures of need, to ensure that resources can be directed to support the most
disadvantaged students within each group.
126

Over and above the individual impacts of educational disadvantage, the panel is convinced that the
compound and concentrated effects of disadvantage at the school level are significant and require
action. Particularly compelling is the evidence that suggests that all students, regardless of their own
background, seem to perform better in schools with a higher average socioeconomic background.
Schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students clearly present a unique set of challenges.
It is clear that these schools require additional resources and other teaching strategies to overcome
these challenges.
There are multiple ways to address the impact of concentration of disadvantage on educational
outcomes. One way to minimise differences in quality between low and high socioeconomic status
schools is to adopt a funding model that provides similar resources to all schools and additional
funding to schools with high needs. Another way is to ensure that core curriculums and program
offerings are relatively similar across all schools. Increased investment in schools with concentrations
of disadvantage can also be used to help schools introduce programs that will make them more
attractive to higher socioeconomic status families (Perry and McConney 2010).
The panel recognises that, on balance, a combination of these approaches is probably required
and notes that Australia has made significant progress towards ensuring core curriculums are
similar across all schools through the introduction of the Australian Curriculum. The panel does
not advocate for incentives that encourage students to move between schools to ‘even out’ the
distribution of disadvantage. Instead, the panel believes the most effective way to address the impact
of concentrations of disadvantage is to allocate additional resources, over and above the base level,
to schools where disadvantage is more concentrated, so they can invest in strategies to assist these
students and to overcome the impact of this disadvantage.
Achieving greater equity in schooling requires an increased investment in disadvantaged students
and disadvantaged schools. However, it also requires that additional resources are used by schools to
employ evidence-based strategies in a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable manner. This will be
discussed further in Chapter 3.4.



Recommendation 5
The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the
non-government school sector, should make reducing educational disadvantage a high priority
in a new funding model. This will require resourcing to be targeted towards supporting the most
disadvantaged students and should:
capture variation in performance within categories of disadvantaged students
significantly increase support to schools that enrol students who experience multiple factors
of disadvantage
significantly increase support to schools that have high concentrations of disadvantaged
students.
127

128

3.3 Funding for educational disadvantage
This chapter describes the funding provided by governments to support the educational outcomes of
disadvantaged students. It discusses the current overall investment, and compares this investment
across the states and territories, noting the difficulties in presenting nationally comparable data.
It also outlines the key issues with the current arrangements, and makes a recommendation for
achieving a simpler and more transparent approach to funding disadvantaged students and schools.
3.3.1 The emergence of funding for disadvantage
The Australian Government and state and territory governments have been providing funding to
support the outcomes of disadvantaged students for many decades. This funding is provided in addition
to general funding, and aims to support these students to engage in learning on the same basis as
students who do not face disadvantage.
Currently, funding allocations for disadvantage are provided by governments in a variety of ways.
These allocations generally provide funding for individual students or groups of students with
specific characteristics, but can also apply to schools in certain circumstances. As demonstrated in
Chapter 3.2, many of the programs and initiatives that have been set up by governments to support
disadvantaged students or school communities have been based on relatively blunt measures
of disadvantage, such as LBOTE status and disability type. They may also be based on historical
programs, resulting in funding which is complex and opaque in design, and not responsive to the
current learning needs of students.
Broader legislative and policy developments have also influenced funding for disadvantaged students
over time. The 1967 referendum changed the Australian Government’s constitutional powers, enabling
legislation specific to Indigenous Australians. The Australian Government has since introduced several
initiatives to improve the outcomes of Indigenous students in schools. For example, the Indigenous
Education Policy and its accompanying legislation in 1989 was an important milestone in providing
funding for Indigenous students and resulted in a number of major national funding programs.
Similarly, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and subsequent Disability Standards for Education in
2005 have influenced the way programs for students with disability have been developed, by creating
legislative obligations on education providers to ensure that students with disability receive an
appropriate education, and by extension, adequate resources.
Over the last decade many state and territory governments have moved away from discrete targeted
programs towards funding disadvantaged students and schools through per student–based funding
formulas, where resources may be provided as a loading or a weighting to a school’s base resource
allocation. Many of these arrangements have been informed by increasingly sophisticated state-level
data on the educational outcomes and associated needs of disadvantaged students and schools. As
foreshadowed in Chapter 3.2, these data show that there are variations in student outcomes within
each disadvantaged group, as well as complex interactions between them at the school level through
the effect of concentrated levels of disadvantage.
More recently, the Australian Government has moved towards a more ‘outcomes-based’ approach to
funding disadvantaged students and school communities, through the National Schools SPP and the
National Partnerships. Under these arrangements, the government sector (and the non-government
sector for the National Partnerships) have greater flexibility in how funding is used, provided that
schools are working towards achieving the national objectives and reform directions agreed by all
governments under the National Education Agreement.
129

3.3.2 Current approaches to funding disadvantage
Australian Government funding
The Australian Government provides funding for educationally disadvantaged students in government
and non-government schools. As detailed in Chapter 2.1, the funding arrangements differ between
the schooling sectors following the introduction of the Federal Financial Relations Framework in 2009.
As a consequence of these arrangements, it can be difficult to determine the amount of funding that
is being provided to address disadvantage in the government sector because funding is ‘rolled into’ a
global funding allocation through the National Schools SPP.
In contrast, Australian Government funding for disadvantaged students in non-government schools
is easier to quantify, as it consists of a number of discrete programs administered under the Schools
Assistance Act 2008. These include Recurrent Assistance and a number of targeted programs.
As outlined in Chapter 2.3, Australian Government Recurrent Assistance for non-government schools
is based on a school’s socioeconomic score under the SES funding model. In addition, non-government
schools catering for students with disability and students with behavioural and emotional problems,
schools catering for high numbers of Indigenous students, and non-government schools located in
remote locations receive the maximum amount of recurrent funding available for these students,
regardless of the school’s socioeconomic score. Eligible non-government schools also receive a
remoteness loading to supplement recurrent funding for students studying at eligible locations.
Indigenous Supplementary Assistance is also provided for all Indigenous students studying at
non-government schools.
Targeted programs include the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program,
ESL—New Arrivals Program, and the Country Areas Program. Each targeted program has set
objectives, eligibility criteria and conditions for the use of the funding. Funding is allocated to schools
through non-government systems and state and territory Associations of Independent Schools. These
bodies make decisions on the allocation of funding to their member schools, and retain a proportion
of funds for administrative purposes. Unlike Recurrent Assistance, where systems are able to retain
2 per cent of funding for administrative purposes, the proportion of targeted program funding that
can be retained is, for most programs, not specified in program guidelines (see Chapter 2.1).
National Partnerships
A number of National Partnerships provide significant funding to support educationally disadvantaged
students in some schools in the government and non-government school sectors. Of the nine
schooling National Partnerships set out in Chapter 2.1, four have a direct relationship with
disadvantaged students:
• Smarter Schools—Literacy and Numeracy
• Smarter Schools—Low SES School Communities
• Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory
• More Support for Students with Disabilities.
While these National Partnerships are funded by the Australian Government, most have a
co-investment condition that requires state and territory governments to match the funding or
continue their own expenditures.
Funding provided through the National Partnerships has been generally well received by state and
territory government school stakeholders, particularly the Smarter Schools—Literacy and Numeracy
and Smarter Schools—Low Socioeconomic Status School Communities National Partnerships, which
130

have been considered valuable in concentrating resources in targeted schools. Schools have been
encouraged to invest resources in areas that have been proven to improve educational outcomes, such
as effective and evidence-based teaching of literacy and numeracy, attracting high-quality principals
and teachers to schools, and providing greater flexibility over staffing, school management and
budgeting. Some states and territories have reported early evidence that the funding is having positive
impacts on school attendance, participation and performance. These impacts will be discussed in
more detail in Chapter 3.4.
The non-government sector has not supported National Partnerships to the same degree. While
broad recognition for the strategic benefits has been reported, concern has been expressed around
the sector’s exclusion from strategic deliberations and subsequent ability to access the funds, the
administrative burden associated with the National Partnerships, and difficulties in continuing the
activities when the funding period ends.
As of July 2011, over a quarter of all schools in Australia had been targeted for support through the
Smarter Schools—Literacy and Numeracy and Low Socioeconomic Status School Communities
National Partnerships. This includes 1922 government schools, 449 Catholic schools and
225 independent schools. While these school numbers are substantial, there are some schools that
support sizable numbers of disadvantaged students that are not eligible for assistance under the
National Partnerships.
Commonwealth own-purpose expenses
The Australian Government also supports the educational outcomes of disadvantaged students
through a number of Commonwealth own-purpose expenses. These are initiatives that align with the
Australian Government’s policy priorities. The Better Start for Children with Disability initiative and the
Helping Children with Autism package are examples of two such programs.
The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 also provides funding for a range of programs
and projects to support the outcomes of Indigenous students across early childhood, schooling,
vocational and tertiary education. This includes programs and projects such as Parental and
Community Engagement, Indigenous Youth Mobility, Indigenous Youth Leadership, and Sporting
Chance. Programs are often delivered through non-school organisations. Other Commonwealth
own-purpose expenses that are funded through annual appropriations include the Northern
Territory Emergency Response School Nutrition Program and the Australian Indigenous Education
Foundation Scholarships.
State and territory government funding
State and territory governments are the major funders of disadvantaged students and schools in the
government sector, with the Australian Government providing supplementary assistance. The quantum
of funding each state and territory government provides for educational disadvantage is not known.
State and territory government funding allocations for schooling are outlined in their respective budget
papers. However, most of these budget papers detail allocations for the delivery of education services,
and only provide disaggregated data for some student groups, such as students with disability.
All state and territory governments use a variety of formulas for the base allocation of resources
to government schools. Various weightings and multipliers are added to the base in recognition
of the needs of different groups of students and different types of schools and communities. The
methodologies used by state and territory governments to calculate the additional funding allocations
for disadvantaged students and schools are highly detailed, and vary considerably across jurisdictions.
131

Generally, all jurisdictions allocate resources to government schools for socioeconomic disadvantage,
disability and English as a second language. New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia,
South Australia and the Northern Territory also provide support for Indigenous students and
students in rural and remote locations, and Tasmania provides support for students based on
locational disadvantage.
Funding for disadvantaged students and schools can be provided in the form of additional staffing,
weightings or loadings to a school’s base budget, grant payments, or a mix of these arrangements.
Several jurisdictions also provide funding for disadvantaged students through stand-alone targeted
programs that support specific outcomes for identified groups of students in government schools. A
range of support and transport services as well as student support allocations are also delivered, such
as subsidised travel for eligible school students and student assistance schemes.
State and territory governments also provide recurrent grants to non-government schools through
different sets of formulas and procedures, many of which include needs-based weightings. The
formula typically identifies the total level of non-government school grants, attaches weightings to
categories of high-need schools and calculates their grants, deducts these grants from the pool, and
then distributes the remaining funds to other schools. In some states, such as Queensland, there have
been recent changes to increase the percentage of the needs component, to be implemented gradually
over a number of years (Keating et al. 2011).
3.3.3 Current overall investment
The collective allocations for disadvantaged students from the Australian Government and state
and territory governments are substantial. Rorris et al. (2011) estimated that approximately
$4.4 billion was spent by governments on programs for disadvantaged students in 2009–10, based
on survey data compiled by state and territory education departments and the non-government
sector. This represents just over 11 per cent of the total recurrent funding7 across the five groups of
disadvantage (Figure 47).
It should be noted that significant caveats and limitations were reported in the data that were
collected and analysed and in view of these limitations, it was concluded that the national
aggregate figures were underestimates, particularly for targeted funding for students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds.
Rorris et al. (2011) undertook further analysis to determine the average per student amount of funding
for disadvantaged students across all states and territories. However, average per student funding
was only reported for students in the government sector, as this sector provided the most complete
set of financial data. Like the aggregate funding data, significant limitations and caveats were reported
for the average per student funding amount, as well as problems in comparing the data across states
and territories.
The analysis found a large variation in the average per student amounts across the five groups of
disadvantage, with a different pattern emerging to the aggregate funding levels. For example, while
funding for low socioeconomic status was the second highest pooled allocation with $585 million spent
on these students in 2009–10, it was the smallest per student allocation. Only an average of $426 (in
additional resourcing) was expended on students from low socioeconomic backgrounds over the year
(Rorris et al. 2011). This indicates that the number of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds
across Australia may be large, and the available funding is being spread too thinly.
7 Based on 2009 total net recurrent income of all Australian schools of almost $39 billion.
132

$ millions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
ESLLow SESStudents with disability
337333
436
585
2,800
iFigure 47: Aggregate government funding for disadvantaged students, 2009–10
Rural/remote Indigenous
Source: Rorrs et al. 2011.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
NTSAWAVIC
8,143
25,765
41,817
4,808
20,23319,800
NSW
13,244
Figure 48: Average funding per student for students with disability in government
schools, by state and territory, 2009–10
Average funding per student $
ACT Tas
Note: Excludes Queensland as insufficient data was received from the government sector to be included in the analysis.
Source: Reproduced from Rorris et al. 2011.
133

Significant variations were also reported in per student funding allocations across the states and
territories, as illustrated in Figure 48 and Figure 49. These variations reflect the different programs
and policies that support educationally disadvantaged students in each state and territory, but also the
extent that disadvantage is present in a particular jurisdiction. This can be impacted by the different
methods used to define some groups of disadvantaged students across the states and territories.
As discussed in Chapter 3.2, variations in educational need across the disadvantaged groups are
most pronounced for students with disability, as reflected in the vast differences in the allocations
provided to students within this cohort. States such as Victoria and South Australia apply per capita
amounts (additional to base funding) for students with disability in government schools based on a
scale from low to high support needs. In Victoria, allocations are divided across a six-point scale and
range from $5894 to $44 991 (Vic. DEECD 2011). South Australia uses a similar needs-based scale,
with allocations ranging from $1722 to $36 757 for students with disabilities in mainstream education
(SA DECS 2010).
Figure 49: Average funding per student for remaining equity groups in government
schools, by state and territory, 2009–10
$’000
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
NSW Vic WA SA Tas ACT NT
ESL
Indigenous
Low SES
Rural/remote
Note: Excludes Queensland as insufficient data was received from the government sector to be included in the analysis.
Excludes low SES for Western Australia due to lack of data on number of beneficiaries.
Source: Rorris et al. 2011.
The majority of funding for students with disability in the government sector is from state and territory
resources. The Australian Government provides only what could be considered top-up funds.
The funding state and territory governments provide for students with disability in the non-government
sector varies considerably. Although some funding is provided by the Australian Government through
the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program, this program only provides a flat
per capita annual amount for every eligible student with disability. In 2011 this amount was $994.
These funding arrangements have resulted in some students with disability in non-government
schools receiving substantially less funding than students with the same educational needs in
government schools, particularly students with high support costs.
134

Finding 22
The existing resourcing provided to the government and non-government school sectors for
students with disability remains an issue. Students with disability in non-government schools
receive substantially less public funding than their counterparts in government schools.
3.3.4 Determining the effectiveness of funding
Rorris et al. (2011) set out to determine the effectiveness of funding for disadvantaged students
on educational outcomes, and concluded that there were insufficient nationally consistent data to
establish effectiveness. Although there have been some studies at a state or territory level that
have evaluated funding or resourcing and its impact on the educational outcomes of disadvantaged
students, or a specific group of students, few have attempted to collect and analyse such data at a
national level.
More should be known about the impact of Australian Government targeted funding for disadvantaged
students and schools on improved outcomes. Programs such as the Literacy, Numeracy and Special
Learning Needs Program, ESL—New Arrivals Program and Country Areas Program provide significant
funding to the non-government sector, and prior to 2009, to both the government and non-government
school sectors. Although there are set objectives and guidelines around the use of funds, very limited
data are required of state and territory governments and the non-government school sector on the
impact funding is having on the educational outcomes of targeted students.
National Partnership arrangements have offered systems and schools greater flexibility at the
local level in the use of funding for disadvantaged students and schools. Instead of prescribed
inputs, systems and schools are working towards the achievement of targets, involving sustained
improvements in literacy and numeracy outcomes, as well as other broader outcomes, such as
attendance and engagement in school. Although the full impact of the National Partnerships will
not be known for some time, evidence of a positive impact on student outcomes for disadvantaged
students is beginning to emerge (see Chapter 3.4).
Over time, the National Partnerships should contribute to a more sound evidence base for assessing
the impact of additional funding for disadvantage on educational outcomes. However, further steps will
be needed to harness the potential benefits of evidence and data in schooling in ways that powerfully
drive improved performance and greater equity.
3.3.5 A future funding approach
Nationally comparable data on disadvantaged students
It is difficult to determine what is spent on disadvantaged students and schools at a national level
due to complex and varied funding arrangements at the state and territory level. This difficulty is
compounded by differences in how students are defined for funding purposes. As outlined in
Chapter 3.2, this is particularly the case for students with disability, students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds, and the group of students within the LBOTE category that are the most disadvantaged.
The difficulties in collecting nationally consistent data on the disadvantaged student groups has
flow-on effects to determining the funding needs of these students. Some states and territories
have sophisticated data on student performance, including data on the impact of disadvantage on
educational outcomes, which they use to direct resources. Other states do not appear to have the same
level of sophistication in terms of data collection and use.
135

Efforts must be made to collect nationally comparable data on investment in disadvantaged students
across the three schooling sectors and the impact funding for disadvantaged students and schools is
having on improving educational outcomes.
Finding 23
The lack of robust, nationally comparable data on funding for disadvantaged students and its
impact on improving educational outcomes is a significant concern. If Australia is to achieve
greater equity in educational outcomes across its schooling system, these data will be paramount
in ensuring funding is directed to where it is needed most, and improvements can be measured
and strengthened over time.
Providing funding for disadvantage with enhanced accountability
The benefits of the Australian Government adopting an outcomes-based approach to funding, as
evident through the National Schools SPP and the National Partnerships, was widely recognised in
submissions to the review. For funding that is provided for educational disadvantage, such as through
the National Partnerships, it was recognised that the increased flexibility in how funds can be used has
allowed additional resources to more effectively target student need within traditional equity groups.
State and territory governments are also moving towards greater per student–based recurrent funding
formulas with adjustments for student, school and curriculum factors and devolved school funding
approaches (Rorris et al. 2011).
While outcomes-based approaches to funding offer flexibility in how systems and schools allocate
resources, they can make it difficult to assess the impact of the effectiveness of targeted funding for
the identified groups of disadvantaged students. This is particularly the case for students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds, where a number of factors impact on student outcomes and other areas
of disadvantage may be present. Rorris et al. (2011) have reported that several states and territories
are in the process of reviewing their school funding systems, and that a key element of these reviews
is introducing changes that can better address the impacts of programs on low socioeconomic status
schools and concentrated school disadvantage.
In contrast to the outcomes-based approach to funding, Australian Government targeted funding
for non-government schools is mostly provided through specific narrow-cast programs, where
funding is based on inputs. These inputs tend to be based on blunt measures of disadvantage. The
guidelines around the use of these targeted program funds should mean that the impact of funding
can be determined more easily; however, limited data are collected on the decisions made by
non-government systems on the redistribution and use of public funds, and the effectiveness of
funding in improving student outcomes for specific groups of disadvantaged students.
Schooling systems now have access to increasingly sophisticated data at the state level on the groups
of students and schools that are the most disadvantaged, and most in need of additional support. This
includes schools with concentrated levels of disadvantage. The key to addressing disadvantage will be
to utilise these data to ensure schools with the highest concentrations of disadvantaged students are
funded adequately and appropriately.
The panel considers that all governments should move away from targeted program funding for
non-government schools that is based on specific groups and purposes, to a broader outcomes-based
approach for all schools. The new funding arrangements must draw upon the best data and allocate
resources based on the needs of students and schools. Part of this approach involves education
authorities and schools being publicly accountable for the educational outcomes of students who are
the recipients of funding that is provided to address disadvantage.
136

A simpler and more transparent approach to funding disadvantaged students and schools
The wide variation between Australian schools in terms of their size, the communities they serve, and
the backgrounds of students results in significant variation in the extent that educational disadvantage
is present across sectors and schools.
Some of this variation explains the different funding policies and approaches of the states and
territories in funding disadvantaged students and schools. It may also reflect differences in the level of
resources that are able to be allocated to addressing educational disadvantage in both government and
non-government schools.
If Australia is to make improvements to the overall performance and equity of the schooling system,
it is important that funding arrangements for disadvantaged students are clear, predictable and
transparent, and that the additional funding that has been identified to support disadvantaged students
is directed to those who need it most. A simple approach to the allocation of funding for disadvantaged
students and schools will help facilitate the collection of data on the impact the additional funding is
having on improving educational outcomes.


Recommendation 6
In contributing towards the additional costs of educating disadvantaged students, governments
should move away from funding targeted programs and focus on ensuring that the states and
territories and the non-government sector are publicly accountable for the educational outcomes
achieved by students from all sources of funding.
Governments should continue to contribute towards the costs of educating disadvantaged
students by providing recurrent funding that provides additional assistance for:
students where the need for assistance is ongoing and reasonably predictable
schools with the highest concentrations of students who need support to achieve improved
educational outcomes.
3.3.6 Conclusion
A significant shift is required in the way all governments provide funding to address educational
disadvantage. Existing arrangements are complex, and do not accurately capture student need within
student groups. They also fail to take account of the significant impact of concentration of disadvantage
at the school level.
All students should be eligible to receive base recurrent funding that supports the achievement of
nationally agreed schooling outcomes. For some disadvantaged students this funding may be sufficient
to meet their educational needs. For other students, additional equity funding should be provided
to supplement the base recurrent funding to enable these students to overcome disadvantage and
achieve improved educational outcomes.
New funding arrangements must be clear, simple and transparent, based on nationally consistent
data, and ensure that additional funding identified to support disadvantaged students is directed to the
students and schools that need it most. They must be responsive to the needs of individual students,
but also to the needs of schools that face concentrated levels of disadvantage.
In Chapter 4.2 and 4.3 the panel outlines its proposed funding arrangements, including funding
allocations for educationally disadvantaged students.
137

138

3.4 Improving outcomes for disadvantaged students
Throughout previous chapters, the panel has discussed the importance of achieving greater equity in
Australia’s schooling system. It has demonstrated that this can be achieved by addressing educational
disadvantage at an individual and school level, and has argued that additional equity funding should
replace targeted programs to better support disadvantage.
The provision of additional resources is only part of the solution. The key to addressing disadvantage
and improving the overall equity of Australia’s schooling system also lies in ensuring that additional
resources are used to employ approaches and practices that have been proven to be effective in an
integrated and sustainable way.
Disadvantaged students face barriers associated with their background which can impact on
educational outcomes. Research also shows that not all disadvantaged students perform poorly—a
student’s background does not necessarily translate to a particular path or destiny. Countries like
Finland and Canada demonstrate that it is possible to do much more to reduce the impact of a
student’s background on educational outcomes by investing in building capacity in school leaders and
teachers, and employing innovative approaches to learning.
There is emerging evidence in Australia from the Smarter Schools National Partnerships that is
highlighting strategies that are working to improve outcomes for disadvantaged students. This chapter
outlines these strategies. Although some of these approaches may not immediately translate to
improved literacy and numeracy results, they create a culture of high expectations and increase the
engagement and attendance of disadvantaged students. These factors are known prerequisites for
successful learning.
3.4.1 National Partnership arrangements
The Smarter Schools National Partnerships represent a significant commitment by all Australian
governments to an integrated strategy to improve the outcomes of educationally disadvantaged
students. The three Smarter Schools National Partnerships contain a series of interrelated and
complementary reforms. Elements of the Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory National
Partnership are also reported within the Smarter Schools National Partnerships framework.
The National Partnership model is proving to be effective in engaging governments in shared
endeavour and providing the flexibility they require to align funding with local priorities. Under the
model, school systems are able to select from a variety of evidence-based strategies that are proven
to be effective in improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged students, and implement them in
ways that are best suited to local need.
The National Partnership model is also encouraging increased collaboration between government
and non-government school sectors, with schools working together towards shared goals. Education
providers across the sectors are beginning to share evidence of effective practice based on
experiences gained from the implementation of programs.
Most National Partnership activities have commenced implementation within the last two years,
following an initial period of planning. While there is emerging evidence of positive impacts that will be
discussed throughout this chapter, the full impact of the National Partnerships will not be evident for
some time. Research suggests that it can take up to five years to see sustained student improvement
following the introduction of school improvement strategies (OECD 2011d).
139

Although it is too soon to assess the full impact of the National Partnerships, early signs of their
effectiveness are encouraging. Information contained in state and territory reports, a draft national
evaluation of the National Partnerships, and an evaluation of pilot projects run in low socioeconomic
status school communities conducted for DEEWR, all suggest that investment in evidence-based
strategies in an integrated way can improve results for disadvantaged students.
3.4.2 Strategies that improve outcomes
Targeting teacher practice to disadvantaged students
Research has pointed to the importance of teacher quality in improving outcomes for disadvantaged
students. Prior knowledge and learning capacity substantially influence each student’s learning
processes, which means that students learn at different paces. High-quality teachers develop
personalised practices to cater to the variety of learning needs, and are flexible in adapting and
applying the curriculum in a way that is relevant to disadvantaged students. They diagnose problems
with the development of skills at an early stage and select the best intervention strategies depending
on the individual learning needs of each student.
A recent study in New South Wales government schools tracked the experiences of three cohorts of
students and explored relationships between and among quality teaching and teacher professional
learning, student achievement and equity. The study found strong evidence that the quality of teaching
has an effect over and above each student’s background and prior achievement, and resulted in
substantial benefit for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous students
(Ladwig et al. 2009).
The OECD (2011d) argues that direct and student-oriented instruction methods are most effective
for teaching disadvantaged students. Similarly, the Productivity Commission (2011) suggests that
specialist components on appropriate pedagogies for disadvantaged students be incorporated into
all teacher training courses, and that pre-service teachers should be given more opportunities to
undertake their practicum in disadvantaged schools.
Beyond initial teacher training, skilled teaching is reliant on ongoing professional learning in
both subject matter and pedagogy. Building the capacity of teachers and school leaders through
engagement in quality professional learning is a key to improving the learning outcomes of
disadvantaged students (Dinham 2008). While this can involve external training, professional learning
within schools is also critical. The draft evaluation of the National Partnerships suggests that raising
the level and impact of instructional leadership and peer expectations through the public sharing of
classroom practice, coaching and tutoring has a positive impact on the outcomes of disadvantaged
students (DEEWR unpublished).
140

Providing incentives to attract talented teachers and principals to disadvantaged schools can play a
vital role in transforming the culture and performance of a school. This enables more experienced
teachers to mentor and coach less experienced colleagues. Attracting and retaining high-quality
teachers is a particular challenge faced by schools in remote and very remote locations, as well as
accessing training for staff. Schools in remote and very remote areas typically experience teacher
shortages and higher teacher turnover rates, which can have an unsettling influence on student
learning and make it difficult for schools to embed consistent practices and build momentum for
school improvement.
For jurisdictions with schools in very remote areas, such as Western Australia and the
Northern Territory, retention of staff is a critical issue in ensuring the success of school reforms
(COAG Reform Council 2010a). The Remote Teaching Service has been established using National
Partnerships funding to address these challenges through strategies to retain those teachers suitable
to work in remote schools for two years or more. By attracting quality applicants to remote teaching
positions, preparing them thoroughly and supporting them through the challenges of working in
remote school environments, it is expected that teacher retention rates will increase.
Literacy and numeracy skills
Disadvantaged students often require accelerated development in literacy and numeracy skills to
redress accumulated gaps in understanding and skills. These skills, once acquired, build a foundation
for further learning. Through this success, disadvantaged students are more likely to have better
educational opportunities and choices during schooling and beyond (OECD 2011d).
The Smarter Schools—Literacy and Numeracy National Partnership funds effort and activity
designed to transform classroom practice in literacy and numeracy to improve student outcomes. As
outlined earlier in this chapter, transformation can be facilitated by strong instructional leadership,
professional support, high expectations, and the use of data to monitor student performance.
The Literacy and Numeracy National Partnership has been evaluated as contributing to the
improvement of student literacy and numeracy outcomes, especially in the lower end of the
performance spectrum (DEEWR unpublished). NAPLAN data also indicate that students in Literacy and
Numeracy National Partnership schools have improved their scores at a greater rate than the national
trend, suggesting that the investment is having a positive impact on literacy and numeracy outcomes.
NAPLAN data show encouraging signs that the National Partnership reforms are starting to gain
traction. In all states from 2008 to 2010, Literacy and Numeracy National Partnership schools did
better in Year 5 numeracy than schools that were not involved. The average scores of Literacy and
Numeracy National Partnership schools exceeded the state trends by between 5 and 16.4 per cent,
indicating that these schools are improving at a greater rate than would normally be expected.
141

Box 9: Building teacher capacity and reforming school structures for early literacy and
numeracy intervention
In a large primary school in New South Wales in 2010, 90 per cent of Kindergarten students were
assessed as being at the lowest level in reading, writing and comprehension and most students
were at the lowest level in numeracy. NAPLAN data from 2009 for Years 3 and 5 in reading
indicated that the school was below the state average in terms of students achieving proficiency.
The student cohort contained over 35 language groups with 98.5 per cent of students coming
from a LBOTE.
Through additional funding from the Smarter Schools—Low Socioeconomic Status School
Communities National Partnership, the school employed an additional two assistant principals
from 2010 and a highly accomplished teacher in 2011, as well as a community liaison officer.
The employment of additional staff has enabled teachers to be released to engage in regular,
scheduled, collaborative planning and targeted professional learning around student
achievement. The teachers have created extensive data walls that map student achievement
against agreed outcomes and used this information to plan for the next learning step for each
child. When a student’s progress is causing concern, parental input and access to specialist
support is sought and individualised learning plans are prepared, as appropriate.
The school’s focus on parent and community engagement and effective transition to school
processes has also been strengthened, focusing on playgroups, a reading club and various
extra-curricular student activities which attract significant numbers of parents and families.
Despite the vast majority of Early Stage 1 students scoring zero in reading tests at the beginning
of the year, 79.5 per cent were on track to achieve the school targets in reading and writing by
the end of 2010. There was a significant increase in the percentage of Stage 1 students achieving
writing outcomes with 70 per cent meeting or exceeding expectations by the end of Term 3.
NAPLAN results in Years 3 and 5 are also trending upwards (NSW DEC 2011b).
Strong leadership to drive school improvement
Research suggests that certain whole-of-school practices should be in place to achieve more equitable
student outcomes (Hayes et al. 2006; Zammit et al. 2007). While leadership is commonly equated with
principals and the school executive, it can take many forms and is more sustainable when it is shared
and developed across the school community. Effective leadership can foster effective classroom and
improvement practice, including building in coaching, mentoring and tutoring arrangements for
teachers. It can also strengthen school improvement strategies through the use of data.
Performance management and regular cycles of school evaluation are critical to driving continuous
improvement. Effective leadership can also instil a school culture that embraces social inclusion,
student wellbeing and diversity, and values different languages, cultures and abilities, which assist
students to feel safe at school (The Nous Group 2011).
As discussed in Chapter 3.2, a large number of disadvantaged students concentrated in the one
school can impact on teacher morale. This can lead to teachers lowering their expectations for the
academic achievement of their students. The OECD (2011d) notes that such expectations have negative
consequences for the quality of instruction provided by teachers and the motivation of students to learn.
Research suggests that effective school leadership can help to set high, but achievable, expectations for
students. In particular, setting high expectations for attendance and attainment has been found to lead
to improvement in outcomes in even the most disadvantaged of schools (The Nous Group 2011).
142

Box 10: Principals as Literacy Leaders
A key priority area for reform under the Literacy and Numeracy National Partnership is to
support school leaders to develop a whole-of-school culture of high performance in literacy and
numeracy.
The Principals as Literacy Leaders (PALL) project was one of 30 Literacy and Numeracy Pilots
for Low Socioeconomic Status School Communities designed to contribute to an evidence base
of effective practice in literacy and numeracy pedagogy for disadvantaged students. It was a
collaboration between the Australian Government, the Department of Education and Children’s
Services in South Australia and the Australian Primary Principals Association.
The program was based around evidence that school principal instructional leadership through
involvement and engagement in student outcomes is necessary to influence student achievement
in addition to teacher instruction (DEEWR unpublished).
Funding was provided for 60 principals in schools in South Australia, Western Australia,
Queensland and the Northern Territory to attend professional development (developed by
three tertiary institutions) to build on their extensive experience to become leaders in literacy
improvement. Principals were required to undertake an assessment of their school in terms of
literacy capability and current environment, and to work with literacy achievement advisers and
leadership mentors to develop a site-specific literacy intervention and appropriate resourcing
and structuring to enable sustainability in their school beyond funding.
Over 88 per cent of teachers working with principals who participated in the PALL project
believed it improved their capacity to address students’ difficulties with literacy learning and
improved student attitudes to literacy learning. The PALL project also improved teachers’ efforts
to support parents to better assist in their child’s literacy development.
This result has prompted the South Australian Department for Education and Child
Development to expand the PALL project to 300 principals, with 150 of these funded under
National Partnerships.
Local solutions
National Partnership arrangements allow schools to adopt flexible and locally based solutions to local
contexts and challenges in ways that are very different to other Australian Government programs.
Under the National Partnership arrangements, schools are rethinking their traditional mode of
operating to better meet the learning needs of students and families and to target early and effective
intervention. Through the introduction of flexible school hours, some jurisdictions are catering for
the needs and circumstances of students and their families. Similarly, the reconfiguring of classroom
structures or reducing class sizes in certain conditions can also support the learning needs of
different cohorts.
The flexibility of resourcing afforded by the National Partnership arrangements has enabled schools
to achieve improved attendance and engagement through the appointment of dedicated staff, such as
mobility or attendance officers, and the use of specific programs to promote wellbeing, confidence,
team building and social skills among students.
143

Parent and community engagement partnerships and strategies
There is a strong association between student achievement and the way in which a school engages
with parents and the community. Strategies to engage parents and the community in disadvantaged
school communities are generally designed to improve attendance and engagement. This is often the
first step in improving the academic outcomes of the students.
Engaged parents encourage positive attitudes towards school, improved homework habits, reduced
absenteeism, and can enhance academic achievement. Parents can play a vital role in their children’s
learning and development by engaging as learning partners from the earliest age, during the school
years and beyond school. Increasing the familiarity of parents with school activities can trigger greater
positive expectations about their children’s education (OECD 2011d).
Underperforming schools can benefit from extra assistance, in the form of resources and other
support, to build school capacity to engage with the parents and the community to improve student
outcomes. Parents from low socioeconomic backgrounds can face higher barriers to constructing a
positive role for themselves in their child’s education and may have poorer levels of self-efficacy. This
may stem from their own level of education or be shaped by their own negative experiences of school.
Language skills, confidence and pressures from other aspects of life can all contribute to weaker
levels of engagement (The Nous Group 2011).
In particular, school, parent and community engagement is a crucial means of improving the
long-term educational outcomes for Indigenous students. Henderson and Mapp (2002) identified
elements of effective practice in connecting schools, parents and communities from diverse social
and cultural backgrounds, including building on the cultural values of the family, stressing personal
contact, fostering communication with parents, creating a welcoming environment for parents, and
ensuring flexible school organisations. Bringing positive Indigenous role models from the community
into schools has proven to be successful in increasing engagement among Indigenous students
(Sarra 2011).
Schools and teachers often need to build external partnerships and broker a range of support services
for students, including working with occupational therapists, clinical psychologists and social workers.
Many schools are already active in these areas, but additional needs-based funding would support
extension of those approaches which can lift learning outcomes and improve student wellbeing.
Box 11: Working to increase attendance and enhance community engagement
A remote school in the Northern Territory that teaches students from surrounding communities
commenced the Smarter Schools—Low Socioeconomic Status School Communities National
Partnership in 2010. Of the school population, 96 per cent are Indigenous students and
92 per cent have a LBOTE, with up to 14 languages spoken in total.
The school has used funds to support a range of strategies focused on working with the
community, for example, engaging the elders to work in the school as mentors and cultural
advisers, and who also act as a bridge between the school and the community. Other
strategies included investment in staff professional development and literacy and numeracy
intervention programs.
Although NAPLAN results for the school are still at or below similar schools, the results are
trending upwards. Attendance rates have risen and the proportion of students attending more
than 80 per cent of the time has doubled over the past three years to almost 20 per cent.
Anecdotal evidence provided by the principal indicates that as well as truancy, behavioural
problems among the children in the school community have decreased.
144

Finding 24
An evidence base is emerging from National Partnership arrangements demonstrating that
investment in integrated strategies that are responsive to local circumstances and need can be
effective in improving outcomes for disadvantaged students. Critical elements in these strategies
include building teacher capacity, strengthening instructional leadership and engaging parents
and the broader community.
3.4.3 Conclusion
The availability of increasingly sophisticated national data on student outcomes is adding rigour to
assessments of how Australia’s students are performing, and how the schooling system can improve.
These data show that Australia can do better to ensure equitable educational outcomes for our
children, and ensure that disadvantaged students are not left behind.
Data, along with qualitative research, are also helping to shine a light on the approaches that are
working to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students. The Smarter Schools National
Partnerships have shown that additional investment in evidence-based approaches in an integrated
way is improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged students. However, there is some concern
that this improvement is based on project-based activity and may not be leading to sustainable,
system-wide reform (DEEWR unpublished). This indicates that gains in student performance during
the life of the National Partnerships may be lost when funding ceases.
It is the panel’s intention to construct a framework based on the best available data and evidence to
help systematise reform in schools and achieve sustained improvements across the schooling system.
Part 4 of this report outlines funding arrangements, supported by appropriate governance structures,
which will embed reform. Additional funding made available to support disadvantaged students should
be invested by systems and schools in programs that will have the greatest impact on improving
educational outcomes. This will enable continuous improvement to be sustained in the long term,
driving improved outcomes for all students in all schools.






Recommendation 7
Future funding arrangements and governance structures for schooling should aim for sustained
improvements in the educational outcomes of disadvantaged students, as part of achieving better
outcomes for all students. To achieve this, additional funding provided to schools to overcome
disadvantage should be invested in strategies that:
improve practices for teaching disadvantaged students
strengthen leadership to drive school improvement
focus on early intervention for students at risk of underperformance
are flexibly implemented to address local needs
encourage parent and community engagement
are based on robust data and evidence that can inform decisions about educational
effectiveness and student outcomes.
145

146

4 Funding architecture

148

4.1 Funding principles
The panel’s recommendations for new funding arrangements for Australian schooling have been
developed with reference to a number of interconnected fundamental principles, which have guided
the consideration of issues and shaped the design of a new funding model. The principles draw on the
panel’s terms of reference, as well as representations and submissions to the review, commissioned
research, and extensive discussions.
The principles are:
• Public funding should be allocated in a fair, logical and practical way so that schools with similar
characteristics and student populations have similar access to public funding, taking into account,
in the non-government sector, the capacity for a contribution from private resources.
• Funding should be allocated to schools and students on the basis of need, in particular to ensure
that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power
or possessions.
• Funding from all sources should be sufficient to ensure that all Australian students have the
opportunity to receive a high standard of schooling.
• Funding should support a diverse range of school provision and allow choice by parents alongside
their responsibility (in most cases) to make a more substantial private contribution when electing to
enrol a child in a non-government school.
• Funding arrangements should complement and help to drive broader school reform so that the
educational outcomes of all students improve over time, particularly the outcomes of students from
disadvantaged backgrounds.
• Funding arrangements should embody the partnership that has developed between Australian
governments and the non-government school sector in funding and delivering schooling
in Australia.
• Funding arrangements should be more transparent.
• Public funding should provide demonstrable value for money and recipients should be accountable
for the proper use of public funds.
The principles set out in this chapter should also guide decisions by governments in implementing and
negotiating new funding arrangements for schooling.
Fair, logical and practical allocation of public funds
Public funds should be allocated in a fair, logical and practical way so that schools with similar
characteristics and student populations have similar access to funding. As shown in Chapter 1.1,
a distinctive feature of the Australian schooling system is the large non-government sector. In this
sector, there is a high degree of variability among systems and schools in their capacity to make a
private contribution towards meeting the resourcing needs of a school. Arrangements for allocating
public funds should reflect these differences within an overall framework that ensures that schools
with similar characteristics and students have access to sufficient resources to provide a high standard
of schooling.
149

Funding in response to need
Extra funds should be allocated towards systems, schools and students in response to need. The panel
has adopted a goal that differences in educational outcomes should not be the result of differences
in wealth, income, power or possessions. Australia needs to make a serious and systematic effort to
reduce the disparities that exist at present between the educational performance of students from
high and low socioeconomic backgrounds. All students should be able to access a high standard of
education regardless of their background and where they live, and funding arrangements should
provide them with the resources, support and opportunity for them to reach their full potential.
Funding from all sources must be sufficient
Total funding for Australian schools from government and private sources, including philanthropy,
should be sufficient to allow students the opportunity to receive a high standard of schooling.
Support for a diverse range of schools
A strength of Australia’s schooling system is the diverse range of schools and schooling experiences
available to students and their parents across the government and non-government sectors.
Arrangements for public funding should foster this diverse provision and allow choice by parents.
Alongside this, parents choosing a non-government school should in general expect that they will
make a larger private contribution than if they enrolled their child in a government school. However,
there should also be recognition that, in certain circumstances, parents sending their children to a
non-government school have no or only a very limited capacity to make a financial contribution.
Driving broader school reform
As outlined earlier in this report, Australia faces considerable challenges in addressing the decline
in our overall school performance, as well as in making serious inroads to improve the equity of
outcomes. Given this, funding arrangements cannot be treated as an end in themselves, but must
be deployed consciously and strategically to address these performance challenges. Funding
arrangements need to complement and drive the broader school reform agenda, with a particular
focus on improving teaching quality and effectiveness through better recruitment, selection,
training, professional learning and standards. Other important elements of these reform directions
are strengthening school leadership, developing and sustaining innovation, engaging parents and
the community in better ways, and implementing more sophisticated forms of accountability and
transparency. The panel’s proposals in this area are set out in Chapter 5.1.
Partnership between governments and the non-government sector
An important feature of Australia’s schooling system is the role of the states and territories as
operators and primary funders of government schools. They also regulate and partially fund
non-government schools. Another important feature is the large non-government sector organised
through systems and individual schools. In such a complex network of delivery, funding and regulation,
responsibility for outcomes is by necessity shared. This can only work effectively in a genuine,
long-term partnership involving all levels of government and across schooling sectors. The roles
and responsibilities of these parties need to be articulated clearly so that they are located at the most
appropriate level. There also needs to be greater coherence in how the funding arrangements operate
overall, so that schools are funded appropriately for need regardless of sector and jurisdiction.
150

Transparency and clarity
Existing funding arrangements are very complex. A key principle for the panel has been to ensure
that the recommended funding arrangements have a clear, coherent and logical design. This needs to
be reinforced through greater public transparency about how systems and schools are funded at all
levels so that it is easier for parents, educators and the broader community to understand in practice
how these arrangements take effect at the local level. Parents should be able to see why their child’s
school is funded at a certain level. Schools should be able to readily understand why school systems
and individual schools receive the funding they do, and how changes to their size or composition of
their student body will affect funding in the future. The public should be able to see the quantum of
public resources Australia invests in schooling in order to understand what is being achieved.
Value for money and accountability
Schooling represents a huge public and private investment in Australia’s children and young people.
This report calls for further significant investment. The effectiveness and efficiency with which
these resources are deployed are vital to making the case for that investment. Therefore, funding
arrangements must ensure proper use of and accountability for public funds. Moreover, funding
arrangements need to be developed and implemented in a way that ensures limited public funds are
directed where they are needed and that the effectiveness of this investment can be demonstrated
by credible and robust evidence. The obligations on recipients of public funding should be clear
and effective.








Recommendation 8
The Australian Government, in collaboration with the states and territories and in consultation
with the non-government sector, should develop and implement a new funding model for schools
based on the principles of:
fair, logical and practical allocation of public funds
funding in response to need
funding from all sources must be sufficient
support for a diverse range of schools
driving broader school reform
partnership between governments and across sectors
transparency and clarity
value for money and accountability.
151

152

4.2 A resource standard for Australian schools
The panel believes that a schooling resource standard is needed as the starting point for a new funding
system for Australian schooling that is transparent, fair, financially sustainable and educationally
effective. This schooling resource standard would replace AGSRC and provide a basis for all recurrent
funding for schooling, whether from the Australian Government or state and territory governments.
This chapter sets out the panel’s recommendations for this new schooling resource standard. It builds
on the analysis of issues in the earlier parts of the report, in particular relating to the imperatives of
improving both our overall performance in schooling outcomes, as well as addressing concentrations
of disadvantage to achieve greater equity in educational outcomes. Chapter 4.3 sets out how this would
be funded from public and private sources, while Chapter 4.4 discusses the significant implications for
governance and regulation of the schooling system.
4.2.1 A schooling resource standard
The panel considers that a new schooling resource standard is both feasible and desirable as the
starting point for a fresh approach to recurrent funding for all Australian schools. This section provides
an overview of some of the key features of the proposed standard, while later sections set out the
details and rationale. The major characteristics of the resource standard are summarised in Figure 50
and Box 12. It would comprise:
• a per student dollar amount for primary and secondary students – this represents the recurrent
resources required to enable students who attend schools with minimal levels of educational
disadvantage the opportunity to achieve agreed national educational outcomes
• a series of loadings for student- and school-based sources of disadvantage – these would
apply where additional resources are needed to provide the same opportunities in schools or for
students with minimal educational disadvantage. These additional loadings would be expressed
as percentages of the per student amounts. They would cover school size and location, as well as
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Indigenous students, those with limited English
language proficiency and students with disability.
These resources, if efficiently and effectively applied over time, would enable students to achieve
agreed educational outcomes. While resources alone are not the answer to Australia’s educational
challenges, it is important that they are used to maximum effect and weighted towards meeting the
greatest need.
153

$ per student
Per student amounts Loadings
Students with disability
Indigenous
English language
School size
Location






Figure 50: Outline of the schooling resource standard
proficiency
Low SES
Box 12: Schooling resource standard – key features
Comprises primary and secondary per student amounts plus loadings for additional costs or
disadvantage.
Resource levels would be derived from those actually used by a group of schools considered
to be already achieving agreed educational outcomes.
Increases the focus of funding policy on achievement of outcomes, evidence, performance and
accountability.
Would be indexed annually and reviewed periodically by a National Schools Resourcing Body.
Desirably, would be used to allocate all general recurrent funding from the Australian and
state and territory governments to government and non-government systems and schools.
Covers recurrent costs only including maintenance—capital would be funded separately.
4.2.2 Rationale for a resource standard
Across many areas of human services, governments have sought to improve both the delivery of
these services and their effectiveness by linking appropriate funding to defined standards of quality
and outcomes. They have also sought to take into account differences in economic and social need of
those receiving the service. Such changes have often been accompanied by independent accountability
processes to ensure that the policy goals of governments are being achieved and services delivered at
the expected level of quality.
In schooling, however, the key benchmark for funding Australian schools—AGSRC—is not sensitive
to the varying needs of schools with very different characteristics and student cohorts and reflects
historical rather than desired expenditure levels (see Chapter 2.2).
154

A resourcing approach based on a per student amount plus loadings for various kinds of additional
costs or disadvantage is not uncommon in school funding arrangements internationally and
in Australia at the state and territory government level. Other than some small loadings in the
current SES funding model for remoteness and majority Indigenous student schools, the Australian
Government has tended to provide targeted programmatic funding towards these needs. Under a
resource standard, targeted programs would be replaced by various transparent loadings to allow for
the additional costs that will be experienced on average in some schools in meeting agreed national
educational outcomes due to the characteristics of the school itself (for example, size and location)
or of its student population (for example, the proportion of students who are Indigenous, from low
socioeconomic backgrounds, have a disability or limited English language proficiency).
Research evidence set out in Chapter 3.2 points to the impact of student background on learning, as
well as how this effect is amplified when disadvantage is concentrated within a school. The literature
on effective schools shows that schools can make a greater contribution to student learning if they not
only have the necessary resources, but also the capacity and the discretion to use them effectively by
focusing on educational and school management processes that work.
Lifting Australia’s overall schooling performance is a broader challenge than addressing various
forms of disadvantage, as many underperforming students are not from disadvantaged backgrounds.
However, there are risks in funding schools on a direct measure of student educational achievement
as it can introduce perverse incentives if schools improve their reported overall educational
performance. Instead, the panel believes that it is preferable to base funding on more objective
characteristics of students and schools that are known to have a significant association with low
educational achievement. There should be flexibility to review general levels of funding and the way
it is allocated to the whole schooling system on a regular basis. Funding also needs to drive broader
schooling reform directions focusing on improving teaching quality and school effectiveness as
discussed in Chapter 5.1.
In the panel’s view increased resources are necessary, but alone are insufficient to improve
educational outcomes. A wealth of evidence and research points to the complexity of the factors that
influence what students learn and achieve during the course of their schooling, including the need to
embed a culture of high expectations of all students regardless of background, improve the quality of
instruction, and make the organisation of schools more effective in their use of available resources.
The real challenge is to make resource use more effective by building the capacity of school systems
and schools to manage and deploy them with appropriate public accountability for what they achieve.
The new schooling resource standard will indirectly support the achievement of nationally agreed
educational outcomes in a dynamic way as expectations evolve and data improves to measure them
over time. This will occur in four ways:
• The initial step of linking the resource standard to educational outcomes will help propel the
focus of funding policy towards issues of educational effectiveness. This will demand better data
and measures of outcomes and outputs, the provision of transparent evidence of educational
performance and clarity of accountability for the overall performance of Australia’s schooling
system. It will require richer data, especially in relation to low-performing students and those with
different types of educational disadvantage.
• Governments will be able to periodically review and adjust the educational aspirations and targets
agreed between them as a basis for setting the schooling resource standard. This means that
the resource standard will remain contemporary and reflect changing aspirations for outcomes
over time.
155

• The range of educational outcomes taken into account in setting the resource standard should
broaden beyond the existing measures. This will encourage improvements in the quality and
use of outcomes data by systems and schools and in turn provide the basis for more effective
accountability and public reporting to parents, the community and governments for the outcomes
students achieve.
• This improved data will also provide the necessary public assurance that Australia’s investment as
a whole in schooling is effective and efficient in the sense that it is grounded on evidence that the
level of public funding in particular gives students the opportunity to achieve agreed outcomes.
Under the resource standard, the same per student primary and secondary amounts would be applied
in calculating the resourcing for all schools and the same loadings would potentially apply to all
schools depending on their particular characteristics and those of their students.
In order to seriously address the challenges Australia faces—keeping our schooling system
internationally competitive, improving equity of outcomes, and better recognising different levels of
need across schools, sectors, jurisdictions and systems—a new approach is needed to resourcing
Australian schools.
4.2.3 Linking funding to outcomes
In the process of developing the schooling resource standard, the panel recognised that the
successful implementation of the standard would require the development of a coherent and workable
methodology. The panel commissioned the Allen Consulting Group to assist in developing the details of
this methodology and testing its feasibility.
This methodology starts by specifying the student outcome benchmark that should form the basis
of the per student amounts in the resource standard. It then identifies a group of schools called
‘reference schools’ that currently meet this benchmark based on My School data on performance in
literacy and numeracy. My School financial data for these schools is used as the basis for estimating
the per student amounts in the resource standard. A process for checking the composition of this
group of schools using supplementary outcomes data is an important part of validating the selection
of schools. In future years, this benchmark can be changed to reflect evolving aspirations and broader
measures of outcomes.
It is important that schools from all sectors—government, Catholic and independent—are considered
for inclusion in the reference group. A resource standard intended to apply to all schools regardless
of sector should draw on the most effective schools without arbitrarily limiting their scope by sector.
In particular, the schooling resource standard per student amounts should be set at a level at which
it can be shown that high performance is achievable over a sustained period of time for students with
minimal levels of educational disadvantage.
The initial per student amounts canvassed in this report are structured around the distinction between
primary and secondary students. This reflects available data and historical differences in costs
between levels of schooling. However, the panel acknowledges that there may be arguments for
different relativities between primary and secondary amounts or for a structure based on year levels, if
it can be shown, for example, that additional resources at primary level could be applied in a way that
effectively reduces later educational gaps in performance. This issue should be examined further in
future reviews of the resource standard by the proposed National Schools Resourcing Body.
156

A student outcome benchmark
The student outcome benchmark specifies the level of outcomes that schools should be expected to
achieve. The panel believes that the resource standard should be aspirational and aim to raise the
level of Australian schooling outcomes to those of the best performing countries on international
measures such as PISA, as well as contribute to the achievement of existing agreed goals set out in
the National Education Agreement and the Melbourne Declaration.
The purpose of setting an initial student outcome benchmark in the context of this review is to identify
those schools which are already attaining a high level of outcomes for their students. The panel agrees
that this focus on the outcomes of schooling should not dwell solely on educational achievement and
should embrace a broader sense of the goals of education to the extent possible. It should include
attendance, retention and completion as well as post-school destinations. It should also, to the extent
possible over time, acknowledge the formative role of schooling in shaping young people who are
honest, resilient, optimistic, tolerant, enterprising and ethical with a commitment to democracy and
fairness as envisaged in the Melbourne Declaration.
In practice, however, data are either currently not available at all or not available on a nationally
consistent basis for these broader outcomes and reliable performance measures would need to be
developed. The only consistent national data currently available for all schools relating to schooling
outcomes are those from NAPLAN. NAPLAN scores provide a standardised measure of literacy and
numeracy and are administered annually across schools in all Australian states and territories to
students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9.
While NAPLAN results are only a partial measure of schooling outcomes, they provide important
information on key aspects of school and student performance against national assessment
frameworks agreed by governments and an indicator of likely further student progress in schooling
and post-school education. For this reason, the panel considered that NAPLAN represents an
acceptable starting point for testing the feasibility of developing a schooling resource standard, subject
to confirming the selection of reference schools and further work as outlined below.
An important consideration in setting an appropriate outcomes benchmark is the broader targets for
school completion and post-school educational attainment levels set by the Australian Government
and state and territory governments. If these targets are to be met, the vast majority of students will
need to be exceeding minimum NAPLAN standards on a sustained basis by Year 9.
Identifying reference schools
Figure 51 sets out the NAPLAN achievement bands used at Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. In each year, students
in the lowest band are regarded as performing below the national minimum standard, while those in
the band above this are performing at the national minimum standard. Only those students performing
in higher bands are considered proficient.
Setting an outcomes benchmark for reference schools is inevitably a matter for judgment, with the
level of expectation embodied in it balanced against the requirement for the reference group of schools
to be sufficiently broad that realistic preliminary per student resource amounts can be estimated. The
initial student outcome benchmark adopted in this report is:
Reference schools are those where at least 80 per cent of students are achieving above the
national minimum standard, for their year level, in both reading and numeracy, across each
of the three years 2008 to 2010.
157

Band 10
7 Yabove the
national
minimum
national minimum
the national minimum
above the
national
minimum
above the
national
minimum
above the
national
minimum
national minimum
national minimum
national minimum
the national minimum
the national minimum
the national minimum
Band 10
Figure 51: NAPLAN assessment scale
Year 3
Band 9
Band 8
Band 7
Band 6
Band 5
Band 4
Band 3
Band 2
Band 1
Year 5 Year ear 9
Students are
standard
Students are at the
standard
Students are below
standard
Band 6
Band 5
Band 4
Band 3
Band 2
Band 1
Students are
standard
Students are
standard
Students are
standard
Students are at the
standard
Students are at the
standard
Students are at the
standard
Students are below
standard
Students are below
standard
Students are below
standard
Band 8
Band 7
Band 6
Band 5
Band 4
Band 3
Band 9
Band 8
Band 7
Band 6
Band 5
Band 4
Band 9
Band 8
Band 7
Band 6
Band 5
Source: ACARA 2010b.
This is a demanding benchmark as it requires schools to systematically embed successful educational
practices in all year levels to achieve and sustain performance consistently above the national
minimum standard. This follows from two aspects of the benchmark:
• Firstly, it is based on the proportion of students achieving above the national minimum standard, so
students achieving only at the national minimum standard do not count towards whether a school
meets the benchmark for being a reference school.
• Secondly, the requirement to achieve the outcome benchmark in each year for three years means
that the reference group of schools is comprised of those with consistently high proportions of
students achieving above the national minimum standard.
Consequently, only 1408 schools (16 per cent of the total) currently meet this benchmark. While a
large proportion of schools achieve the 80 per cent benchmark in any one grade, year or domain, the
proposed outcome benchmark would only be met if the school as a whole meets every one of these in
each of the three years. In secondary schools, only Year 9 performance has been used due to the lack
of national consistency on whether Year 7 is considered part of primary or secondary school, and the
timing of the test only three months after Year 7 students commence secondary school.
Before adopting the initial benchmark, the panel requested that the Allen Consulting Group examine
the number and composition of schools that would meet a 90 per cent benchmark. Using this higher
benchmark would have reduced the number of reference schools to only 271 in total (3 per cent of
all schools), meaning that the reference group of schools would be too narrowly based and likely to
contain too many atypical schools. The panel concluded therefore that a benchmark of 80 per cent was
more appropriate.
However, the panel notes that other benchmarks can be chosen and that the architecture advocated by
the panel can easily accommodate the use of other benchmarks, either initially or over time.
158

Characteristics of reference schools
Most of the identified reference schools are in the government sector (51 per cent), while 30 per cent
are in the Catholic sector and 19 per cent in the independent sector (see Figure 52). Government
schools are particularly prominent at the primary level (64 per cent of primary reference schools), with
non-government schools more prominent at the secondary level (56 per cent of secondary reference
schools). Almost all of the combined schools in the reference group are independent schools. Figure
52 also shows that a higher proportion of non-government than government schools meet the student
outcome benchmark, particularly in secondary and combined schools.
Number of schools
Number of schools
Primary Combined Primary Combined
612
104
2
291
119
14
48
16
202
0
Government
13%
10%
0%
24%
38%
10%
19%
24%
33%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Government
iFigure 52: Composition of reference group schools
Proportion of schools in each sector
Per cent
Secondary Secondary
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Independent Catholic Independent Catholic
Source: Allen Consulting Group analysis of ACARA data, unpublshed.
The reference group also includes many schools performing well above the 80 per cent benchmark,
indicating that these schools are able to perform at levels that would be on a par with or exceed
international benchmarks. For example, among primary reference schools, 31 per cent have been
identified as having at least 35 per cent of students performing in the top two proficiency bands
compared to 1 per cent of non-reference primary schools.
It is important to bear in mind that reference schools are not selected to be representative of all
schools. Rather, they were selected on the basis of sustained educational achievement and as a
starting point for estimating per student resource requirements for schools with minimal levels of
educational disadvantage.
Next steps
As a first step in validating the selection of reference schools, the performance of secondary and
combined reference schools in PISA 2009 was used to crosscheck. This showed that, generally, the
high-performing secondary and combined schools in NAPLAN are also the high-performing schools
in PISA.
159

Given the scope of outcomes data available to the panel for the purposes of the review, it is important
that the initial selection of reference schools be validated with the states and territories and the
non-government sector using data on a wider range of outcomes available at state and territory level.
To prepare for this, the Allen Consulting Group worked with the Centre for Research on Education
Systems at The University of Melbourne to identify potential measures. Advice from the centre
highlighted the importance of whole-of-cohort measures of student outcomes such as NAPLAN to
ensure that outcomes reflect the experiences of all students. Measures that capture the success of
only part of school cohorts will not reflect the costs of provision for other groups and only partially
reflect school outcomes. In the short term, nationally consistent whole-of-cohort data in addition to
NAPLAN is limited to school attendance, with Year 12 retention rates and post-school destinations
available as additional points of reference in some states only. This exercise may lead to additions or
subtractions from the initial list of reference schools.
In the longer term, a broader range of nationally consistent outcome measures should be used as the
basis for selecting reference schools. The Centre for Research on Education Systems was also asked
to advise on other potential outcome measures including Australian Tertiary Admission Rank scores,
senior secondary subject assessments, vocational education and training unit completions and student
outcomes against state and territory curriculum frameworks. However, major limitations with each of
these measures were found. Student and parental satisfaction surveys could also be used in future.




benchmark.
Recommendation 9
The Australian Government, in collaboration with the states and territories and in consultation
with the non-government sector, should:
initially base the per student component of the resource standard on an outcomes benchmark
that at least 80 per cent of students in reference schools are achieving above the national
minimum standard, for their year level, in both reading and numeracy, across each of the
three most recent years of NAPLAN results
conduct additional research to validate the composition of the reference group used for setting
the per student amounts to apply from 2014 onwards
broaden over time the scope of student outcomes covered in the benchmark to include other
nationally consistent, whole-of-cohort measures
review regularly the scope, methodology and data required to set the student outcomes
4.2.4 Scope of costs
Capital costs
The panel believes that any policy for resourcing schooling should include the ability to address the
capital costs of schools, recognising the different ways in which these are funded.
Against a background of concern about the quality of capital infrastructure in many schools, as well
as the future capital needs of schools in Australia (see Chapter 2.4), there are strong public policy
arguments for identifying and developing a capital cost element within a resource standard. This would
enable school systems and schools to plan for future capital needs with greater certainty than under
current arrangements. The distinction between capital and operating costs is not always clear-cut and
depends on how a system or school manages its available resources.
160

However, the panel believes that including a capital component in the resource standard at this time
is not feasible for a number of reasons. There are significant differences between sectors and schools
in the age and condition of their facilities as well as in their approaches to capital financing through
private borrowings or government capital works appropriations. Including a capital component in the
standard could create perverse incentives by discouraging the consolidation of existing schools when
there is a strong educational case for doing so or encouraging the opening of new schools, where there
is already capacity in existing schools. Moreover, it is not possible to estimate capital funding levels or
future capital requirements using current national financial and planning data.
Consequently, the resource standard proposed by the panel is a recurrent resource standard, which
includes a provision for general maintenance and minor acquisitions (such as computers and general
equipment below established capitalisation thresholds), but does not include capital costs associated
with debt servicing or the acquisition of fixed assets such as land and buildings. Section 4.3.3 sets out
the panel’s proposed approach to funding capital through an expanded but separate stream of funding.
In time, the development of a separate capital standard would complement the recurrent resource
standard and guide government investment in school infrastructure.
Sector, system and school-level costs
Sector costs are those relating to all schools regardless of whether they are government or
non-government schools. They include the regulation of schools, certification of teachers, national
school testing and development of curriculum. As these costs are largely met by governments and are
not incurred by schools directly, it is not appropriate to include them in the resource standard.
Schools in Australia are organised on various bases, with most schools being part of government or
non-government systems, and others independent of such affiliations. Systems undertake a number
of functions on behalf of their member schools, which would be undertaken at school level in
non-systemic schools. It is important for the sake of comparability in setting the resource standard
across different types of schools that it recognises the full costs of delivering schooling services,
regardless of whether these are performed within a stand-alone school or centrally or regionally as
part of a system. This means that system costs should be included in the schooling resource standard.
The My School data has been compiled in a way that ensures that it is as comparable as possible
despite these differences in the way schools operate, and therefore provides a reasonable basis for
deriving an initial estimate of the resource standard.
Adjunct service costs
Adjunct service costs comprise expenditures that are not consistently incurred by schools across
jurisdictions and sectors, that is, they may be incurred by other areas of government. Examples
include health and welfare costs and student transport subsidies, which are largely funded through
agencies other than those responsible for education, although some schools also bear these costs to
varying degrees.
However, including these costs in the resource standard could lead to cost shifting between
government portfolios and different levels of government. The panel’s preferred approach is that
these costs are dealt with outside the resource standard and estimated as a separate resourcing
requirement on funding bodies akin to a community service obligation.
161




Recommendation 10
The schooling resource standard should:
be a recurrent resource standard, which includes a provision for general maintenance and
minor acquisitions below an established capitalisation threshold but does not include capital
costs
include the full costs of delivering schooling services regardless of whether these are
delivered in an independent school or a systemic school
exclude adjunct service costs.
4.2.5 State adjustments
National schooling resource standard per student amounts may need to be adjusted to reflect
differences in costs across jurisdictions. As shown in Figure 53, there are at present substantial
differences in average net recurrent income per student by state and territory in government schools.
Figure 53: Net recurrent income per government sector student by state and
sector, 2009
$’000 per student
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
17.99
12.48
11.5611.72
13.56
10.6610.18
10.74
0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
These differences in average per student resources are likely to reflect several factors:
• socio-demographic variation across jurisdictions because some states and territories have student
populations with greater levels of need than others
• variation among states and territories in the capacity and willingness of governments and parents
to fund schooling relative to other priorities
• differences in costs among states and territories due to variations in labour market conditions and
general salary levels or in education sector salaries as a result of wage negotiations
162

• policy differences among state and territory governments on desired service levels as expressed
in class sizes, the provision of teachers’ aides and learning support teachers and student
welfare support
• differences in jurisdictional size and population density, which can affect the average size of
individual schools, as well as economies of scale in administration and in the operation of
school networks
• variations in efficiency in the provision of schooling for the same scope or quality of
education outcomes.
The resource standard will capture some of this variability through loadings.
A key principle that has guided the panel is that the schooling resource standard should be a national
one, but with some flexibility in how it is applied. This means that it should not be influenced by
deliberate and discretionary policy differences between jurisdictions such as wage levels,
student–teacher ratios and class sizes which might create distortions in government policy and
funding decisions. Any state-based adjustments in applying the schooling resource standard per
student amounts would need to apply to all sectors within each jurisdiction.
The panel believes that the best way of achieving this outcome would be through negotiations
between the Australian Government and state and territory governments in consultation with the
non-government sector. These should be guided by the following principles:
• the states and territories should have an incentive to take part in new funding arrangements
• the states and territories and the Australian Government should share any efficiencies in the
provision of education on the basis of the schooling resource standard
• no state or territory should be disadvantaged in relation to Commonwealth Grants Commission or
GST allocations as a result of their cooperation with the Australian Government in implementing
the schooling resource standard.
These issues are discussed further as part of the funding arrangements in Chapter 4.3.



Recommendation 11
The Australian Government should negotiate with state and territory governments and consult
with the non-government sector with a view to implementing a national schooling resource
standard that allows flexibility in how it is applied across jurisdictions. This process should be
guided by the following principles:
the states and territories should have an incentive to take part in new funding arrangements
the states and territories and the Australian Government should share any efficiencies in the
provision of education on the basis of the schooling resource standard
no state or territory should be disadvantaged in relation to Commonwealth Grants
Commission or GST allocations as a result of their cooperation with the Australian
Government in implementing the schooling resource standard.
163

4.2.6 Application
The primary application of a schooling resource standard would be as a basis for the Australian
Government to determine:
• its total funding contribution to government and non-government systems and schools
• its allocation of that contribution across government and non-government systems and across
individual, non-systemic schools.
The resource standard would replace AGSRC for these purposes. That is, the resource standard
needs to be able to be applied both where the Australian Government is a direct funder of individual
independent schools and where it is an indirect funder of schools through school systems, such
as those operated by the Catholic and some independent system authorities. This requires greater
sophistication and precision in the development of a resource standard for non-systemic schools. This
requirement for precision is especially the case for low socioeconomic status non-systemic schools
where they are largely funded by governments.
Parallel to this, the resource standard could also be used by state and territory governments to set
the desired level of aggregate funding from state and territory governments for both government and
non-government sectors in each jurisdiction. This would signal a greater commitment by state
and territory governments to the funding of non-government schools as part of the new funding
arrangements, as well as to the adequate funding of government schools. The same would be the
case for Australian Government funding of government schools.
The resource standard proposed by the panel is not intended to completely replace the more detailed
funding formulas used by state and territory governments to allocate resources to the individual
schools they operate. Similarly, it is not intended to replace the funding formulas used by non-government
systems, where these reflect a more specific and localised assessment of funding needs. However, it
would desirably be used by state and territory governments to inform resource allocation to individual
non-government systems and schools. This would help to simplify school funding arrangements
by reducing the number of different benchmarks currently in use and add greater coherence to the
funding system in Australia.
Government and non-government systems that agree to the full implementation of the schooling
resource standard would receive funding from the Australian Government based on it. Systems would
still be able to moderate the allocation of these funds based on their own localised assessment
of funding needs provided the allocation method was consistent with the overall approach of the
schooling resource standard.
Systems would be required to be transparent about their allocation model and to advise and
report publicly when their allocation of funding to individual schools within their systems deviated
significantly from allocations suggested by the schooling resource standard for a school.
Where a non-government school is not part of a system, public funding would continue to be paid
directly to the school.
A resource standard could assist in identifying total investment requirements over time for school
education in Australia and provide a more reliable and relevant benchmark against which costs and
outcomes for school systems and schools can be assessed. A resource standard, particularly if applied
by all schooling systems, would also provide assurance to parents, taxpayers and communities that all
Australian schools have the financial resources required to deliver defined and appropriate educational
outcomes for all Australian children.
164

and schools.
Recommendation 12
The schooling resource standard should be used by the Australian Government as the basis
for determining its total recurrent funding for government and non-government systems and
schools and for the allocation of that funding across systems and schools. It should also be
adopted by the states and territories to guide their total recurrent funding for government and
non-government schools and the allocation of that funding to individual non-government systems
4.2.7 Per student amounts – indicative estimates
A preliminary methodology for estimating the resource standard per student amounts was developed
for the panel by the Allen Consulting Group. The methodology and the data it uses are described in
Appendix H.
Based on this, the panel has concluded that, using 2009 financial data, the indicative primary and
secondary amounts would be as set out in Table 19. These indicative amounts provide a plausible and
acceptable starting point for further work. However, it is not possible to propose any firm estimates of
the per student amounts until further work has been undertaken with the states and territories and
the non-government sector as described below.
Primary
Table 19: Schooling resource standard per student amounts – indicative estimates
2009 (excluding loadings)
Secondary
Indicative estimate
About $10,500
(excluding loadings) About $8,000
Two streams of work are required to develop firm estimates of the resource standard per student
amounts:
• Stage 1: Updated estimates will be required by mid-2012 to facilitate negotiations between
the Australian Government, the states and territories and the non-government sector over the
implementation of the new funding arrangements for schools. These could be based on 2010
My School financial data, which should be available in early 2012. These updated per student
amount estimates would enable governments to legislate in the second half of 2012 for the new
arrangements to commence from the beginning of 2014.
• Stage 2: Actual per student amounts to apply from the beginning of 2014 will be required by
early 2013 at the latest, so that systems and schools have as much notice as possible of potential
impacts on them in the first year of the new arrangements. These could be based on 2011
My School financial data, which should be available in early 2013.
As discussed in Chapter 4.4, the panel believes it is critical for the successful implementation of
the resource standard that all parties have confidence in it. This requires a process that is open
and transparent and in which the Australian Government, the states and territories and the
non-government sector all share responsibility for oversight. It also requires extensive expertise and
technical knowledge about data on schooling outcomes and costs. For these reasons the panel is
recommending the establishment by legislation of a specialist National Schools Resourcing Body with
165

the necessary degree of independence to advise governments on the resource standard. This body,
once established, will have responsibility for the streams of work outlined above.
However, given that legislation and establishment of the new body will take some months to
implement and work on the updated estimates needs to be progressed as quickly as possible, there
will need to be an interim process to develop these estimates in the first half of 2012. The work
required in this first stage is likely to include:
• updating data sources to take account of 2011 My School NAPLAN data
• validating and finalising the reference schools by using available school-level data on a broader
range of educational outcomes
• further refining the estimation methodology as described in Appendix H
• testing and proving of the proposed loadings discussed later in this chapter.
While the National Schools Resourcing Body would commence operations as soon as possible and
would ultimately be responsible for progressing all of this work, the Australian Government should,
in the meantime, facilitate a collaborative process with the states and territories and the
non-government sector to enable Stage 1 of this work to commence immediately.
Recommendation 13
The Australian Government should work with the states and territories and the non-government
sector to further refine the indicative schooling resource standard amounts for primary
and secondary students. This should occur by mid-2012 to facilitate negotiations over the
implementation of the new funding arrangements for schools. This work should commence
immediately with the National Schools Resourcing Body to take responsibility for progressing it
as soon as it is established.
4.2.8 Loadings
The schooling resource standard also includes loadings for student- and school-based sources of
disadvantage. Key issues considered by the panel here included:
• the general rationale for loadings
• the factors for which loadings should be added to the per student amounts
• how loadings should be structured
• indicative ranges for the loadings
• further work to develop initial estimates of loadings and then to test and improve these.
Rationale for loadings
Loadings directly address the panel’s equity objective to ensure that differences in education outcomes
are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions. They are intended to
represent the additional efficient cost, funded from all sources, to give schools with a particular
characteristic or with particular types of students the same opportunity to achieve nationally agreed
educational outcomes as schools that do not attract loadings. They are not a guarantee that such
schools will achieve those outcomes as this depends also on the effectiveness with which those
resources are deployed.
Loadings are also intended to recognise that, in all sectors and states, there are schools with vastly
different characteristics and student cohorts. The variability in the cost of educating students in these
schools cannot be captured adequately through an average measure such as AGSRC. An approach
166

based on per student amounts plus appropriate loadings for specific types of children and schools
provides a fairer and more transparent basis for funding schools.
Linking loadings to an estimate of the cost of bringing certain types of schools up to nationally agreed
educational outcomes is also meant to drive a greater focus on improving outcomes in these schools
over time. This approach requires much richer and more sophisticated data on student performance
and a more forensic use of that data to bring about change in educational practices and expectations.
Moreover, the loadings are meant to be dynamic and evolve over time in response to changing
performance and need. They cannot be set in stone and will be subject to regular, periodic and
independent review along with the other elements of the resource standard.
Factors requiring loadings
A key consideration in the determination of loadings is identifying legitimate factors for when a loading
should be applied. The principles taken into account by the panel in selecting those factors where a
loading is recommended are that they should:
• relate to objective and measurable characteristics of students and schools
• be evidenced by a demonstrable independent correlation with poor educational outcomes or
higher costs
• be able to be calculated at school level using available and reliable nationally consistent data
• help target resources in the most educationally effective way
• be relatively simple to understand and apply.
Taking into account submissions to the review and its own commissioned research, the panel
concluded that the schooling resource standard should initially include loadings for:
• school size and location
• students from low socioeconomic backgrounds
• students from Indigenous backgrounds
• students with limited English language proficiency.
The panel recognises the importance of considering the needs of students with disability in a resource
standard that covers the recurrent cost of educating all students. However, at the present time there
are several significant obstacles to estimating a loading to cover the additional cost of making the
educational adjustments needed for students with disability within a recurrent resource standard.
These include:
• the lack of a nationally agreed approach for identifying students with disability and the extent
of educational adjustment required to support them. However, a model for collecting nationally
consistent data has been trialled with this work continuing through MCEECDYA
• the absence of complete national data on the number of students with disability, their required
levels of educational adjustment and the existing additional resources allocated for them
• the known high variability in the costs of providing educational adjustments for these students,
which depend on their individual circumstances and conditions.
Consequently, the panel has included a loading for students with disability in the resource standard at
Figure 50, but it is not possible to provide an indicative estimate of loadings at this time. Further work
must be undertaken to set appropriate loadings after nationally consistent data on student numbers
and adjustment levels becomes available. The work already underway through MCEECDYA should be
completed urgently so that loadings can be set as soon as possible. Other aspects of the arrangements
for funding students with disability are discussed in Section 4.3.2.
167

Structure of loadings
Recognising the additional costs of operating in remote and very remote areas, the panel concluded
that there is a strong case for a range of loadings for all schools in these areas to reflect costs as well
as school size. However, in metropolitan and provincial areas there is not the same case for a loading
for size of school as this could encourage the establishment of unnecessarily small, uneconomic
schools with limited capacity to offer an adequate educational experience to students. It could also
encourage schools with multiple campuses to fragment.
However, it was recognised that the issue is not clear-cut as some provincial and metropolitan schools
are necessarily very small because they have a specialist role, while some small provincial schools
also face additional costs due to sparsity of population. Accordingly, the appropriateness of loadings in
provincial and metropolitan areas for very small and small schools requires further work. This work
should also examine differences between primary, secondary and combined schools and whether the
MCEECDYA broad geographical classification is the most appropriate for this purpose.
In relation to Indigeneity and low socioeconomic background, the panel’s analysis in Chapter 3.2 led it
to conclude that loadings should be structured to reflect concentration of disadvantage so that higher
loadings are provided where disadvantage is more concentrated.
However, there are important issues about the degree to which concentration should drive allocation
of resources through loadings. As discussed in Chapter 1.2, the issues about underperformance
in Australia are broader than low socioeconomic status and Indigenous students, with many
underachieving students from middle and high socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore, many
low socioeconomic status or Indigenous students perform well. One way to address this and direct
resources to a broader range of schools would be to have a separate but lower loading for students
in the second lowest socio-educational advantage quarter as well as those in the lowest quarter.
The panel also considered whether a student being Indigenous or of low socioeconomic status alone
warranted a loading regardless of student concentration, and concluded that this issue requires
further analysis using student-level data to determine the extent of differentials between those
students and others in schools where there is minimal concentration.
In relation to limited English language proficiency, the panel noted evidence as discussed in
Chapter 3.2 showing that the effect on student performance of a LBOTE is complex. It is affected by
the particular language background concerned and does not appear to be affected by concentration
of LBOTE students, as is the case for low socioeconomic status and Indigenous students. For these
reasons the panel considers that a loading is best structured around limited English language
proficiency and that a per student loading would be most appropriate. With the development of better
measures of English language proficiency, it would become possible to differentiate between students
requiring more or less support.
Indicative ranges
As with the per student resource standard amounts, it is not possible to propose any firm estimates
of the loadings at this stage until more detailed work has been undertaken in collaboration with the
states and territories and the non-government sector. For the purposes of its modelling, the panel
worked with a range of possible estimates and structures for loadings as indicated in Table 20. These
can provide a starting point for this further work (see Appendix H).
168

Table 20: Schooling resource standard loadings – indicative ranges
From (lower end of range) to (upper end of range)
School size and location 10% 100%
for medium-sized schools in remote locations for very small schools in very remote
locations
10% 50%
15% 25%
Low socioeconomic
status for each low SES student in schools with under
10% of students in the lowest SES quarter
for each low SES student in schools with more
than 75% of students in the lowest SES quarter
Limited English
language proficiency for each student with limited English proficiency for each student with limited English proficiency
(for example, recently arrived refugees)
Indigeneity 40% 100%
for each Indigenous student in schools with for each Indigenous student in schools with more
between 5% and 25% of students who are than 75% of students who are Indigenous
Indigenous
Further work
As with the resource standard per student amounts, further work is required to develop firm estimates
of the loadings and proposals for how they should be structured. In the short term, initial estimates
will be required by mid-2012 to support negotiations over the implementation of the new funding
arrangements. Work required in this period will include:
• the approach to loadings in provincial and metropolitan areas for very small and small schools and
the applicability of the MCEECDYA broad geographical classification for the purpose of loadings
related to location
• the extent to which and on what basis a low socioeconomic status weighting should be provided for
the two lowest socioeconomic status quarters
• whether Indigenous and low socioeconomic status students in all schools should attract a loading
set at a lower level of the range set out in Table 20, regardless of student concentration
• the possible interactions between remoteness, low socioeconomic status and Indigeneity, which
would need to be taken into account in setting loadings
• an assessment of the additional resources that proposed loadings would deliver to selected types
of schools with the most concentrated disadvantage and the educationally effective strategies these
could support.
Actual loadings to apply from the beginning of 2014 will be required by early 2013 at the latest.
Work to be undertaken by this point will depend on progress with the first stage of work. It will also
need to connect to longer term tasks such as improving the accuracy and rigour of measures of
low socioeconomic status and limited English language proficiency. Drawing on improved data and
information on the evaluation of programs aimed at redressing disadvantage, consideration could also
be given to assessing loadings based on how schools with various concentrations of disadvantage have
improved outcomes towards national benchmarks over time. This would involve assessing changes in
resource levels and outcomes from a broader range of schools with similar characteristics to those in
the reference group. This will become possible once more years of consistent national financial data
become available.
169

This work will need to be progressed as part of the periodic independent review of the resource
standard amounts and loadings to ensure that loadings remain relevant and appropriate and
contribute to improved outcomes over time. This would include reviewing the need for the structure
and level of loadings for specific factors. If the panel’s goal of equity was reached at some future point
so that outcomes were less strongly associated with student background and characteristics, then the
rationale for loadings would need to be carefully examined, taking into account the sustainability of
improvements and the conditions for ongoing success.
This approach will require a much greater focus over time on improving data about resource
allocation, educational outcomes and the evidence base for effective intervention, not only for students
from disadvantaged backgrounds but more generally for low-achieving students. It would be important
to avoid entrenching loadings as an entitlement. Otherwise, it is possible that the needs that loadings
address—the challenge associated with students with certain characteristics meeting educational
goals and targets—will never be successfully met.


is higher

Recommendation 14
The schooling resource standard should include loadings for:
school size and location
the proportion of students in a school who are Indigenous or from low socioeconomic
backgrounds, with loadings to increase for schools where the concentration of such students
the proportion of students in a school with limited English language proficiency.
Loadings for students with disability should be added as soon as possible once work underway
on student numbers and adjustment levels is completed. The Australian Government should
work with the states and territories and the non-government sector to develop and check specific
proposed loadings by mid-2012.
4.2.9 Indexation and review
It is important that there are both appropriate annual indexation arrangements for the resource
standard per student amounts, and regular review and adjustment of those amounts, as well as the
loadings. These functions should be performed by the National Schools Resourcing Body established
for this purpose.
A key consideration in indexation is to ensure that the real value of the public contribution to the
resourcing needs of systems and schools is maintained between these regular reviews as if the
standard itself was recalculated each year based on the most recently available financial and
other data. Embedded in both the concept and the derivation of the schooling resource standard
per student amounts is a presumption that schools make efficient use of the resources available
to them. This will be enhanced by increased accountability for outcomes. Further discounting
the standard amounts in any way through partial rather than full indexation for changes in costs
from year to year would undermine the long-term effectiveness of adopting an outcomes-based
resource standard in addressing equity and performance. It would also compromise the integrity of
the design of the standard which is derived from data for individual schools which are known to be
educationally effective.
170

Accordingly, annual indexation of the amounts should be linked to changes in actual costs in reference
schools, which could be established by surveying these schools each year to establish the increases in
wage and non-wage costs experienced over the previous year. The changes derived from this could be
applied to the schooling resource standard amounts assuming an appropriate ratio of wage to
non-wage costs derived from the survey. Details of the costs for which data should be collected
and how a survey might be conducted would need to be developed as part of implementation of the
package. At present with AGSRC, there is likely to be a 12- to 15-month lag between the end of the
calendar year for which the data is collected and when it is applied to the standard amounts.
Regular periodic review and evaluation of the effects of the resource standard will be critical to
achieving its objectives. These should include consideration of possible improvements to the
methodology for deriving the amounts and loadings along with explicit consideration of the extent to
which the standard should reflect changes in both prices and quality of inputs, as well as the impact
of the standard on available resources for similar schools in all sectors. It is also important that better
data is collected and analysed over time to underpin the assessments of effectiveness and ongoing
need for loadings. Therefore, areas for data improvement should be a specific focus of these periodic
reviews, with the extensive work that may be required between reviews to be coordinated and driven by
the National Schools Resourcing Body.
The functions described here should be overseen and undertaken at arm’s length from government.
Confidence in the resource standard needs to be established through processes that are open and
transparent. This should involve representation from different schooling sectors and interests and
be based on credible, expert advice. This requires an institutional and governance framework around
the process for updating the resource standard that is rigorous and independent. This would be
best achieved by an independent statutory body. This body would collect any necessary data, acquire
appropriate expertise, develop suitable statistical methodologies and periodically recommend updated
levels of the standard per student amounts and loadings to governments. These arrangements are
dealt with more fully in Chapter 4.4.
Recommendation 15
Schooling resource standard per student amounts applying in 2014 should thereafter be indexed
annually based on actual changes in the costs of schooling incurred by reference schools.
Both the per student amounts and the loadings should be reviewed by the National Schools
Resourcing Body before the commencement of each funding quadrennium. Indexation and review
should occur within an institutional framework that ensures that the process is independent,
transparent and rigorous.
171

172

4.3 A new funding framework
The schooling resource standard described in the previous chapter provides a starting point for a
new framework for funding all Australian schools. As the schooling resource standard deals with the
total level of resources required from public and private sources, it is necessary to now set out in this
chapter the panel’s conclusions about how the resource standard should be funded from public and
private sources in different types of sectors and schools. As part of this, the panel’s recommendations
for funding for students with disability and for capital are also set out.
Explicit in the panel’s recommendations is the principle that all Australian children and young people
should have the opportunity to receive an internationally acceptable level of schooling, regardless of
their background. Implicit in the panel’s recommendations is that while sufficient resources should
be available to fund an internationally acceptable level of education for all Australian children, these
resources can be, and currently are, provided from public and private sources. The important issue
from a national perspective is not who provides the resources for schooling for all Australian children,
but that they are actually provided.
4.3.1 General recurrent funding
The schooling resource standard provides a starting point for a new coherent, national funding
model which recognises that schools with similar student and other characteristics, regardless of
sector, require the same total resources. The per student amounts plus loadings for each school
would represent the estimated total public (Australian and state and territory governments) and
private resources required for the school to provide its students with the opportunity to achieve high
educational outcomes.
The panel’s funding model is summarised in Figure 54. This shows that the schooling resource
standard amounts and loadings would be fully publicly funded in government schools, as well as
in certain non-government schools where a minimum private contribution from parents would not
be anticipated. For most non-government schools the public contribution would be reduced as the
capacity of the school and parents to contribute to the cost of schooling increases.
If the actual private contribution exceeded that which is anticipated in the funding formula, a
non-government school would have total resources in excess of the resource standard.
Non-government schools would not be required to raise private income or fees equivalent to
the anticipated private contribution.
A minimum public contribution would apply to schools with the highest capacity to contribute. In this
regard the panel noted the Australian Government’s announcement that no school will lose a dollar
per student as a result of this review and has framed its recommendations in ways which will allow
that to be achieved.
173

$ per studentGovernment
schools
Actual private
Minimum private
Other
non-government
schools
Loadings (will vary by school)
Minimum
public
Anticipated
Schooling
including
Figure 54: Proposed model for funding the schooling resource standard
School capacity to contribute
contribution
Fully publicly funded non-government schools
Actual private contribution
contribution
Public contribution
contribution
private contribution
resource
standard
loadings
The schooling resource standard will provide a new level of coherence and a common structure for
funding all Australian schools. However, arrangements for funding the resource standard through
public and private contributions need to take into account some critical structural and historical
differences between government and non-government schools. They also need to reflect some
differences in their particular obligations and roles within the Australian schooling system, which have
implications for funding.
Government schools
The government sector is required to provide access to a place for all young people whose parents
wish them to attend a government school and has less scope to deny entry or exclude some
students than non-government schools. It is important for the future of Australian schooling that the
government sector continues to perform the role of a universal provider of high-quality education
which is potentially open to all.
This has significant implications for funding and means that, in practice, funding for government
schools from fees cannot be significant or compulsory. Education legislation in the states and
territories indicates in various ways that government schooling is either free or that, where levies are
charged, they cannot be compulsory and students cannot be denied access to an education program
because the payment has not been made. Within these parameters, states and territories differ in the
level of fees charged, the rate of collection and the degree to which they actively pursue payments
from parents (Keating et al. 2011).
Consequently, government schools are almost entirely publicly funded, with private income
representing only around 5 per cent on average of the total resources available to them. This reflects
the requirement for government schools to be universally accessible to all students regardless of
parental financial capacity to contribute towards the cost of schooling.
174

In contrast, non-government schools have greater autonomy over their enrolments, school
organisation and ethos, and parental contributions through fees and other income in general play a
much greater role in funding. Non-government schools value their distinctive ethos and roles, as well
as their access to these non-government sources of funding. In choosing non-government schools,
parents expect to make a direct financial contribution to the cost of schooling.
Consequently, most non-government schools report higher levels of private income. Many
non-government systems and schools also offer concessional fees to parents with limited means or in
temporary hardship. While there is great variability within the non-government sectors in the capacity
of systems and schools to support themselves, overall private funding plays a much greater role in
meeting the resource needs of these schools than it does in government schools.
In this context the panel believes that it is appropriate that in the government sector the fully loaded
resource standard for each government system or school should be fully publicly funded, with any
private contribution towards the school adding to its available resources. Accordingly in Figure 54, the
private contribution in government schools is shown as being in addition to the schooling resource
standard including loadings.
Recommendation 16
Australian governments should fully publicly fund the recurrent costs of schooling for
government schools as measured by the resource standard per student amounts and loadings.
Non-government schools
In most non-government schools it is appropriate to anticipate that a minimum private contribution
will be made towards the schooling resource standard. In general, parents choosing to enrol their
children in a non-government school know that fees are expected and believe that this is a worthwhile
investment for the benefits it provides their children.
Based on the existing level of public funding available to non-government schools, the panel believes
that this anticipated private contribution should be set at a minimum of 10 per cent of the per student
resource standard amounts for a school. This anticipated minimum contribution should apply to the
per student resource standard amounts only and not to any applicable loadings, as these loadings are
more likely to be significant for schools with the least capacity to contribute and the loadings would
then be fully publicly funded for these schools.
Recommendation 17
Australian governments should base public funding for most non-government schools on the
anticipation that the private contribution will be at least 10 per cent of the schooling resource
standard per student amounts.
In addition, the panel considers that there are some circumstances where it is appropriate that the
schooling resource standard and loadings should be fully publicly funded for some non-government
schools as they serve students and communities with very high levels of need. A minimum private
contribution would not be anticipated for these schools. The arrangements for these schools would
relate solely to funding and would not affect their ownership, governance or operation.
175

The panel’s suggested criteria for deciding whether a non-government school should be funded on this
basis would be that the school:
• does not charge compulsory fees and has no real capacity to do so, and as a result has very limited,
if any, private income
• provides education to students with very high needs, such that without full public funding of the
school’s resource standard those needs would not be met.
As with government schools, any actual private contribution towards these schools would be in
addition to the schooling resource standard.
The panel has identified four types of non-government schools which it believes meet these criteria in
the first instance. These are:
• special schools serving children with disability
• special assistance schools catering for students with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties
• majority Indigenous student schools comprised of those with 80 per cent or more Indigenous
enrolments, or a very remote school with 50 per cent or more Indigenous enrolments
• sole provider schools in remote locations that are effectively offering a universally accessible
service equivalent to a government school.
Around 5 per cent of all non-government schools are estimated to fall into one of these four
categories, which are not mutually exclusive. Detailed criteria for identifying these schools would need
to be developed and agreed by governments as part of implementing the panel’s recommendations.
Eligibility of schools to be funded in this way should be determined against these criteria by the
proposed National Schools Resourcing Body.


Recommendation 18
Australian governments should fully publicly fund the recurrent costs of schooling for
non-government schools as measured by the resource standard per student amounts and
loadings where the school:
does not charge compulsory fees and has no real capacity to do so, or
provides education to students with very high needs, such that without full public funding of
the school’s resource standard those needs would not be met.
The eligibility of particular non-government schools for full public funding should be determined
by the National Schools Resourcing Body.
An implication of the Australian Government’s announcement that no school will lose a dollar per
student as a result of this review is that there should be a minimum level of public funding for schools
regardless of the capacity of the school to contribute or of its actual contribution to the funding for the
schooling of its students. This minimum public contribution would apply to a very small number of
high-fee-paying schools, as is the case now under the SES funding model.
The panel considers that a level between 20 to 25 per cent of the schooling resource standard per
student amounts without loadings would be appropriate. This is approximately equivalent to the
current minimum level of combined Australian Government and state and territory funding received by
those non-government schools which are funded under the SES model and which have an SES score of
130 or above. Together with transition arrangements discussed later in this chapter, this would meet
the government’s expressed policy intent and could be administered efficiently.
176

Recommendation 19
To meet the Australian Government’s announcement that no school will lose a dollar per student
as a result of this review, a minimum public contribution towards the cost of schooling should
apply to non-government schools at a level between 20 to 25 per cent of the resource standard
per student amounts without loadings.
Measure of need for public funding
An appropriate measure of a non-government school’s ability to self-fund all or part of its schooling
resource standard is a critical part of the design of any new funding model. For this purpose, a good
measure of need should be able to accurately and reliably differentiate between systems and schools
in a variety of circumstances. In addition, a measure of need should preserve incentives for parents to
invest in the education of their children where they choose to and are able to do so.
The panel considers that basing public funding on the level of private resources a school is likely to
be capable of raising for itself is preferable to relying on the private income that it actually receives.
As argued in Chapter 2.3, linking public funding directly to a non-government school’s private income,
expenditure or assets would be inherently complex and difficult to implement equitably given that
different schools finance their recurrent and capital needs in very different ways. It would also
accentuate disincentives for parents to invest in their children’s education.
The panel’s preferred approach is that some measure of a school’s capacity to contribute private funds
to a schooling resource standard should be used, such as the SES of the school and its students.
The current SES measure is derived from the characteristics of the census Collection Districts in
which a school’s students live. However, this is subject to a potentially large degree of inaccuracy as
the students attending a particular school are not necessarily representative of the socioeconomic
averages of the areas in which they live.
A more precise measure of the SES of a school would be more accurate and credible. This could take
the form of a measure based on smaller areas, such as the mesh blocks which represent the smallest
unit of the 2011 census, or alternatively, a direct measure of parental SES. The latter would need to be
developed and tested on a school-by-school basis.
The panel considers that work should commence as a priority to develop a more precise measure of
capacity to contribute to replace the existing SES measure. In the meantime, the existing SES measure
has been used by the panel as the basis for estimating the quantum of the private contribution that
should count towards meeting the resource standard in non-government systems and schools. In the
case of a non-government system this would be the enrolment weighted average SES score of all the
schools in the system.


Recommendation 20
For the purposes of allocating public funding for non-government systems and schools, all
Australian governments should:
adopt a common concept of need for public funding based on the capacity of the school or
system to contribute towards its total resource requirements
commence work as a priority to develop, trial and implement a better measure of the capacity
of parents to contribute in consultation with the non-government sectors.
The Australian Government should continue using the existing area-based SES measure until
this better measure is developed.
177

Anticipated private contribution
The panel’s proposed funding model for non-government schools is summarised in
Figure 55. There are three parameters of this model that require further discussion:
• the school SES point up to which only the minimum private contribution is anticipated
• the school SES point beyond which only the minimum public contribution is payable
• the shape of the anticipated private contribution between these two points.
In considering these issues, the panel was conscious of both the simplicity of continuing some
parallels with the existing SES funding model and the need to ensure that new funding arrangements
for non-government schools reflect the range of private contributions across the sector.
As discussed in Chapter 2.3, there is long-established diversity in levels of parental contributions
within the non-government sector. In particular, there are a large number of Catholic systemic schools
and independent schools at different school SES levels which aim to offer relatively low-fee education.
The panel also noted that, if governments fully funded the difference between the schooling resource
standard and what parents and others actually contribute to schools, incentives for private contribution
would be weakened. It would also lead to different levels of public funding for non-government schools
with similar capacity to contribute from private sources.
Schooling
including
$ per student
Minimum
public
Minimum private
)
Anticipated
Loadings (will vary by school)
About 130
)
(i(iiFigure 55: Anticipated private contribution in non-government schools
resource
standard
loadings
School SES score
contribution
20% to 25% (a)
contribution 10% (aprivate contribution
Public contribution
Schools with SES scores
in the lowest quarter
Fully publicly funded non-government schools (ba) As a percentage of the resource standard for the system or school without loadngs.
b) Where schools serve students and communties wth very high levels of need.
The panel concluded that, in order to balance these considerations, the minimum anticipated
private contribution should apply to the lowest quarter of schools by their SES scores. That is,
non-government schools with SES scores up to a point to be determined between 90 and 95 would be
anticipated to make the minimum private contribution. The minimum public contribution would apply
to schools with an SES score above around 130.
The panel also concluded that it would be premature to finalise these three parameters of the new
funding model before updated estimates of the schooling resource standard per student amounts and
178

loadings are developed as described in the previous chapter. Once this work has been done, and it
is possible to assess in detail the impact of the proposed resource standard and funding model on
non-government systems and schools, the parameters should be determined in a way that balances
the desirability of:
• minimising the extent and incidence of any differences between the schooling resource standard
required by each non-government system and school and the resources available to it from
all sources
• preserving reasonable incentives for an adequate private contribution towards the schooling
resource standard across non-government schools with various capacities to contribute.
This should also occur in the context of the panel’s overall recommendations on funding, including
that significant additional funding is required overall to address the imperatives of improving both
Australia’s overall performance in schooling outcomes as well as achieving greater equity. It should
also reflect the panel’s approach that, from a national perspective, the overriding issue is that
schooling is adequately funded, not who provides those resources.


Recommendation 21
For the purposes of allocating public funding for non-government schools, the minimum private
contribution should be anticipated for schools with SES scores in the lowest quarter of scores.
The minimum public contribution should apply to schools with SES scores above around 130. The
precise school SES scores and the shape of the anticipated private contribution between these
two points should be set in a way that balances:
minimising the extent and incidence of any differences between the schooling resource
standard required by each non-government system and school and the resources currently
available to it from all sources
preserving reasonable incentives for an adequate private contribution towards the schooling
resource standard across non-government schools with various capacities to contribute.
Australian Government and state and territory roles in public funding
So far the panel’s proposed funding model has been couched in terms of the private and the public
contribution towards the standard per student amounts and loadings. A key issue is the relative
responsibilities of the Australian Government and the states and territories for public funding of
schools. In Australia, the funding of schooling is shared between the Australian and state and territory
governments. As noted in Chapter 2.1, at present and for historical reasons the states and territories
bear by far the largest share of funding for government schools, while the Australian Government is
the primary public funder of non-government schools. As argued there, the panel considers that this
arrangement is out of date, confusing, misleading, unbalanced and undesirable.
In principle, there is an argument for all levels of government making a more balanced contribution
towards the public funding of the resource requirements of schools in both the government and
non-government sectors. In particular, a more balanced alignment of funding responsibilities would
better reflect:
• the aspiration for a funding system that is less marked by strong sectoral divides between
government and non-government schools
• the Australian Government’s access to faster growing revenue sources compared to the constrained
revenue-raising capacity of most states and territories
179

• the slower productivity growth achievable in delivery of education, health and other human
services, which are the primary expenditure responsibilities of the states and territories
• the increasing complexity of the Australian economy where from time to time the states and
territories find themselves with growing or declining economic growth because of the dynamic
nature of the world economy and its direct effect on their revenue-raising capabilities
• the magnitude of the investment required to improve Australia’s schooling performance and make
substantial progress in reducing inequity of educational outcomes.
In practice, the panel recognises that the existing imbalances have come about over many years
and that the extent of the disparities in contributions across sectors and states and territories is of
a magnitude that cannot be changed quickly. Consequently, changes to these funding roles would
need to be implemented incrementally and within a governance framework which gives certainty and
stability around expected future funding levels for schools in all sectors from all government sources.
Moreover, there are significant existing differences between the states and territories in the level of
expenditure on both government and non-government schooling, as well as in the capacity of different
jurisdictions to fund growth.
Nevertheless, the panel believes that the Australian Government and the states and territories need to
negotiate more balanced funding roles as part of the transition to a new funding model for all schools
that will enable Australia to maintain and extend its educational aspirations. In the government sector,
aggregate funding shares should be rebalanced gradually by the Australian Government bearing
some part of the cost of bringing current expenditures in the government sector up to that indicated
as required by the resource standard. This would need to be phased in over time and vary across the
states and territories, at least initially, to reflect differences in current resourcing levels and costs.
In return for this, the states and territories could take a larger role in contributing to non-government
schools by agreeing to move towards sharing some greater part of the cost of public funding on a more
balanced basis with the Australian Government. The net effect, it is suggested, would be additional
funding for the states and territories, with their increased funding for non-government schools more
than outweighed by additional Australian Government funding for government schools.
The panel believes that a number of key principles should guide any renegotiation of funding roles:
• the states and territories should continue to operate their systems of government schools
• the states and territories should have an incentive to take part in new funding arrangements
• non-government schools should be assured that relevant states and territories will meet any
funding commitments to them
• no state or territory should be disadvantaged in relation to Commonwealth Grants Commission or
GST allocations as a result of their participation in new funding arrangements.
Recommendation 22
The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the non-government
sector, should negotiate more balanced funding roles as part of the transition to a new funding
model for all schools, with the Australian Government assuming a greater role in the funding
of government schools and the states in relation to non-government schools. This should
occur within a governance framework that gives certainty and stability around expected future
funding levels for schools from all government sources and operational independence for
non-government schools.
180

Funding for systems
The Australian Government is both a funder of government and non-government systems, as well as
a provider of funds directly to individual schools. System authorities have the direct responsibility for
operating and allocating funding to their member schools and are better placed than the Australian
Government to determine the most effective allocation of available resources in their particular
circumstances. This is an aspect of the principle of subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity has become an important guiding principle for governments when considering the
appropriate roles of various levels of governments in federations like Australia. In general, the
principle of subsidiarity suggests that the level of government closest to the communities receiving
those services should provide those services and, if possible, fund and regulate them. Based on the
principle of subsidiarity, it is appropriate that the actual provision of schooling should be organised at
the local level. However, it would not be possible to fully fund schooling adequately without substantial
Australian Government involvement.
For this reason, in the government sector, the Australian Government has not sought to allocate its
recurrent funding down to school level and also because this would be a purely notional step given that
state and territory government funding has been the larger contribution. Likewise in non-government
systems, any individual school-based calculation of funding is purely notional since system authorities
generally reallocate block funding they receive from the Australian Government or the states and
territories in accordance with their own locally adapted and needs-based funding formulas. The
latter typically take into account system-wide policies, individual school needs and available private
resources.
Given the primary responsibility of government and non-government system authorities for the
funding and operation of their schools, Australian Government funding for all systems should be
assessed and calculated at the system rather than the school level. While the resource standard
needs to be calculated at school level, the results of this would be aggregated to system level in order
to calculate Australian Government funding. The panel believes that this is a more realistic basis on
which to fund systems than to notionally calculate funding for individual schools within them.
Nevertheless, block funding of systems does raise issues about the transparency of funding allocation
by systems and their accountability for the allocation and use of all of their resources. Assessment and
payment of funding to systems on a consistent basis should be accompanied by a responsibility and
obligation on them to disclose the basis on which public and private funding is allocated to individual
member schools. In particular, there should be an obligation on systems to report publicly when
the allocation of total resources to schools deviates significantly from the principles in the schooling
resource standard. In addition, the actual Australian Government and state and territory funding
allocated to individual schools should continue to be collected and reported on the My School website.



on the
Recommendation 23
Given the primary responsibility of government and non-government system authorities for
the funding and operation of their schools, public funding for systems should be assessed and
calculated at the system level provided that systems:
are transparent about the basis on which they allocate any public and private funding to
member schools and the purpose for which it is spent
report publicly when the allocation of total resources to schools deviates significantly from the
principles in the schooling resource standard
continue to report income and expenditure from each source for individual member schools
My School website.
181

Targeted funding programs
The schooling resource standard represents a new approach to funding schooling and the costs of
redressing educational disadvantage. This will require a much greater focus over time on improving
data about resource allocation, educational outcomes and the evidence base for effective intervention.
This would replace the approach, which the Australian Government has taken since the 1970s, of
seeking to influence the direction of schooling or the achievement of particular outcomes through
additional program funds for specific activities or groups of students. In the government sector,
targeted programs were subsumed within the National Schools SPP from 2009, but have continued
in the non-government sector. Since then the National Partnerships have involved a more substantial
and strategically directed investment in improving schooling outcomes across sectors, especially for
students achieving poorer outcomes or from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, they are still a type
of targeted funding that seeks to direct inputs to particular goals.
The panel believes these types of specific purpose funding are incompatible with the new funding
model framed by the schooling resource standard and should be phased out, with the funds planned
to be allocated through them rolled into the base of funding available for the new model. This would
also simplify and streamline existing Australian Government funding for schools. Moreover, the
architecture of the schooling resource standard and associated funding arrangements is such that the
outcomes sought by the standard can be amended by the inclusion of additional specific outcomes,
which would then increase future funding requirements.
The Australian Government could continue to have a role in funding specific programs or activities
where these do not direct funding to the school level (for example, funding cross-sectoral national
initiatives, improved accountability and research) or provide funds for activities not within the scope of
the resource standard (for example, capital). There may also be a need from time to time for initiatives
to address non-ongoing, temporary priorities outside the four-yearly periodic review of the schooling
resource standard, but these should be subsumed within the structure of the standard and its loadings
if there is a case for making them permanent.
Recommendation 24
In establishing a baseline level of existing funding for the schooling resource standard and
loadings, the Australian Government should roll in, to the maximum possible extent, all general
recurrent funding for schools and targeted funding programs for non-government schools and
National Partnerships, subject to appropriate transitional arrangements.
Transitional arrangements
This review was commissioned to make recommendations on the future funding arrangements for
schooling in Australia for 2014 onwards. The new model for general recurrent funding of systems and
schools set out in this report will, when fully implemented, involve extensive change for all sectors,
schools, system authorities and governments. These changes will have significant budgetary costs
for governments in some cases and will also have implications for legislation and intergovernmental
agreements. The changes also have the potential to impact on the way systems and individual schools
are funded.
Results of aggregate financial modelling of the panel’s recommendations are presented in Chapter 4.6.
As noted earlier in this report, further work is required to update indicative estimates of the schooling
resource standard per student amounts and loadings and to finalise some key parameters for the
funding of non-government schools and systems. Given this, it is not yet possible to explore detailed
182

impacts on jurisdictions, systems or schools. Subsequent work will be required in this respect,
including to model any transitional arrangements in detail.
Nonetheless, it is clear to the panel that a well-thought-out transition extending some years beyond
2014 will be necessary to accommodate the magnitude of change involved in moving to this new
model. For this purpose, transitional arrangements should be developed that:
• provide certainty to systems and schools about funding during the implementation period,
consistent with the Australian Government’s announced commitments
• recognise the need for extensive negotiation involving all governments and non-government school
authorities along with associated changes to agreements and legislation
• acknowledge the fiscal pressures on governments while moving to reap the benefits of a more
outcomes-driven approach to funding as quickly as possible.
A more detailed assessment of transitional issues should be prepared once the schooling resource
standard estimates and key funding parameters are known.



Recommendation 25
In order to successfully implement the funding reforms in this report, the Australian Government
should, in collaboration with state and territory governments and in consultation with the
non-government sector, develop transitional arrangements that:
provide certainty to systems and schools about funding during the implementation period,
consistent with the Australian Government’s announced commitments
recognise the need for extensive negotiation involving all governments and non-government
school authorities along with associated changes to agreements and legislation
acknowledge the fiscal pressures on governments while moving to reap the benefits of a more
outcomes-driven approach to funding as quickly as possible.
4.3.2 Students with disability
As discussed in Chapter 4.2, it is not possible at this time to estimate the loadings required in the
schooling resource standard for the additional costs of students with disability. Further work to
allow this to happen must be undertaken urgently so that loadings can be set as soon as possible.
One aspect of this further work is to ensure that the loadings reflect the variety of levels and costs
of additional support required by students with disability. The panel considers that it would be most
appropriate to fully publicly fund loadings for students with disability as an entitlement.
Students with disability entitlement
There are a number of significant data and definitional issues that hamper the development and rapid
implementation of this funding stream for students with disability and which must be addressed
urgently before new arrangements can be finalised. The panel is of the view that the recently
developed and trialled model for collecting nationally consistent data about school students with
disability, and the level of educational adjustment required by them, provides a good basis to inform
the development of funding arrangements for students with disability. The panel also recognises
that immediate collaborative action between the Australian Government and state and territory
governments will be essential to make progress in this area.
183

In October 2011, MCEECDYA agreed that further work is required on the model before it can be
endorsed for national implementation. However, for the model to be used to inform the development
of funding arrangements for students with disability from 2014, it is critical that the Australian
Government and state and territory governments work towards the full implementation of nationally
consistent data from January 2013.
Recommendation 26
The Australian Government and state and territory governments, in consultation with the
non-government sector, should, as a matter of priority, progress work on collecting nationally
consistent data on students with disability and the level of educational adjustments provided to
them to enable national data to be collected and reported from January 2013.
Under the panel’s proposed funding arrangements, all schools with students with disability would
be allocated the applicable schooling resource standard per student primary or secondary amount,
derived from public and private sources according to the arrangements set out in Chapter 4.2.
The school would also attract any other applicable loadings, for example, due to location or other
educational disadvantage. For some students with disability, this recurrent funding alone may be
sufficient to make the necessary educational adjustments to participate in schooling on the same basis
as other students.
However, for students with moderate to high support needs, additional funding is needed to make
the adjustments for them to participate effectively in schooling. The calculation of the amounts of
this additional funding should be based on the cost of making reasonable educational adjustments to
participate in schooling on an equal basis as other students and should be included as a loading in the
schooling resource standard.
It is expected that the forthcoming National Disability Insurance Scheme may cover the costs of certain
goods and services used in supporting students with a severe or profound disability, if these are also
required for everyday living. Such goods and services may include personal care and therapy services,
and the costs of equipment such as wheelchairs.
When implemented nationally, the model for collecting nationally consistent data on students
with disability will provide information on the level of reasonable educational adjustments that are
being made for students with a diagnosed or validated disability. The proposed National Schools
Resourcing Body could then undertake work, in consultation with the Australian Government, state
and territory governments and the non-government sector, to establish an initial funding range based
on the average cost of making each level of adjustment. Costs that are associated with therapy and
other support services for students with disability should be the responsibility of portfolios outside
education, and should not be funded from the students with disability loading.
The panel considers that where this additional loading is required, it should be provided to any school
in the form of a disability entitlement based on the number of children attending the school requiring
the different levels of assistance. Unlike the schooling resource standard per student amounts and
other loadings, the students with disability loading should be fully publicly funded as an entitlement,
irrespective of the type of school the student attends or its school SES. This will support an inclusive
approach to schooling for students with disability, and address the needs of students regardless of the
sector in which their school is located. Providing the same publicly funded entitlement to a student
for a certain level of educational adjustment regardless of the school they attend will mean that all
schools are able to meet their legislative obligations in providing access and adequate education to
students with disability.
184

It will be critical that the Australian Government and state and territory governments work together to
determine how the cost of the students with disability entitlement may be shared by governments.
The students with disability entitlement should be paid to schools in the same way as the rest of
their funding, according to whether a school is funded directly or through system authorities. This
would allow the relevant school authority to make decisions around the resourcing of individual
schools, based on the local needs and considerations, and subject to appropriate transparency in their
allocation processes.
It will be important that the National Schools Resourcing Body monitor and refine the loadings under
the students with disability entitlement over time, as the national data on the number of students with
disability and their levels of educational adjustments matures.



Recommendation 27
The National Schools Resourcing Body should work with the Australian Government and state
and territory governments in consultation with the non-government sector to develop an initial
range for a student with disability entitlement. The entitlement should be:
provided in addition to the per student resource standard amounts
set according to the level of reasonable educational adjustment required to allow the student
to participate in schooling on the same basis as students without disability
fully publicly funded and applied equally to students in all schooling sectors.
Special schools for students with disability
The proposed funding arrangements involve students with disability in special schools funded in a
consistent way to students with disability in mainstream schools. These students will attract a per
student amount, plus any applicable loadings and, in addition, their loading under the students with
disability entitlement. However, as discussed in Section 4.3.1, in recognition of the high resourcing
demands that are experienced by all special schools, non-government special schools should receive a
loaded per student amount that is fully publicly funded, as would occur in government special schools.
In recognition of the limited knowledge of the resourcing practices and needs of government and
non-government special schools catering for students with disability, the panel recommends that
the National Schools Resourcing Body undertake work to determine the resourcing needs of these
schools, including their educational and other support costs, and any impact the National Disability
Insurance Scheme may have on school resourcing.
Recommendation 28
The National Schools Resourcing Body should undertake work to determine the resourcing
needs of government and non-government special schools catering for students with disability.
4.3.3 Capital and infrastructure
As capital and infrastructure costs (other than maintenance and minor works) will not be funded
through the recurrent schooling resource standard, the panel sees a need for ongoing Australian
Government capital funding for both the government and non-government sectors.
185

In the panel’s view it is appropriate that government and non-government system authorities and
individual schools continue to take responsibility for managing their infrastructure. However, a major
component of the panel’s recommendations is that there is a need for greater transparency about, and
accountability for, the condition of school infrastructure in Australia.
The panel’s proposed arrangements would establish two separate streams of Australian Government
funding to support capital investment. One stream of funding would be to support new schools
and school expansions, and the other would be to support investment in infrastructure in existing
schools. Key features of the panel’s proposed arrangements for capital and infrastructure are outlined
in Box 13.
The purpose of an Australian Government capital funding stream for new schools would be to
encourage cross-sectoral planning and efficiency in education provision, and to assist with the costs
of establishing or expanding schools. It will also enable the balanced development of new schools in
new suburbs and towns, and facilitate coordinated and efficient planning and support the appropriate
expansion of existing schools.
The purpose of an Australian Government capital funding stream for existing schools would be to
encourage improved accountability and higher standards for school infrastructure and will provide
essential funding. Elements of the non-government sector already rely heavily on Australian
Government funding, and it is clear the government sector needs additional support.
The panel expects that the cost of maintenance of existing school infrastructure would continue to be
met through recurrent funding as is currently the case.





Recommendation 29
Funding for capital purposes should be available to both government and non-government
systems and schools outside of the framework of a recurrent schooling resource standard.
Box 13: Capital and infrastructure funding – summary of panel proposals
Establish School Planning Authorities in each state and territory to manage planning and
development of new schools and major expansions of existing schools.
The Australian Government to establish a School Growth Fund to support the establishment
of new schools and expansions of existing schools. The fund would be managed by School
Planning Authorities. These funds would be made available for both government and non-
government schools.
The Australian Government to establish a School Infrastructure Development Grants program
to provide funding for capital projects in existing schools. These funds would be made
available for both government and non-government schools.
Strengthened accountability and improved transparency arrangements.
Appropriate indexation of the School Growth Fund and the School Infrastructure Development
Grants.
Establishment of School Planning Authorities
Based on the evidence presented to it, the panel considers that school planning is an area that
requires significant reform, particularly in establishing new schools and the development and
provision of schooling in growth corridors. In order to improve school planning, the panel proposes
186

that a School Planning Authority be established in each state and territory. These authorities will play
a significant role in promoting comprehensive and coordinated planning for schooling.
Membership of all schooling sectors on each authority would promote meaningful cross-sector
collaboration and planning, and will foster informed community discussion on the roles and
relationships of all schools within a community. The core functions of the authority in each state or
territory would be as follows:
• School Planning Authorities will be required to manage the proposed new School Growth Fund.
• All proposals for new schools, school closures, and major expansions of school enrolments would
be discussed by School Planning Authorities.
• School Planning Authorities will be responsible for the approval of funding for projects under the
School Growth Fund. These decisions should be binding and only projects approved by authorities
would be eligible for funding.
• School Planning Authorities will be required to publish their decisions.
• School Planning Authorities will assist with sourcing and developing state-level information about
education provision and demographic patterns to assist all sectors with planning.
To simplify administrative arrangements, School Planning Authorities would not have a role in
managing or acquitting funds. Once proposals have been approved, funds would flow from the
Australian Government to the relevant state government education authority or Block Grant Authority.
State and territory education authorities and Block Grant Authorities would be responsible for ongoing
project management and reporting to the Australian Government through DEEWR.
New schools – the School Growth Fund
The Australian Government should establish a School Growth Fund (the fund) to support the
establishment of new schools and school expansions. The fund and associated governance
arrangements would have two key objectives:
• ensure cross-sector collaboration and planning occurs and results in education provision that is
efficient and meets the needs of communities
• provide financial support where education providers are struggling to meet enrolment demand.
The panel considers that the total funding pool should be notionally allocated to each state and
territory authority and each Block Grant Authority based on projected enrolments, with an adjustment
for the proportion of projected enrolments in regional or remote areas. It is important that this
funding stream be geared towards addressing future need, rather than simply focused on existing
enrolment share.
It is the panel’s position that access to the fund in each state and territory should be dependent on
the establishment and operation of the proposed School Planning Authorities which would be solely
responsible for approving the allocation of funding to support a project. The panel acknowledges that
schools could be established without approval of a School Planning Authority. While they would not
be eligible for funding under the School Growth Fund, they could still attract recurrent funding if they
meet the relevant state or territory criteria.
In considering proposals for funding from the School Growth Fund, School Planning Authorities would
be required to consider:
• obligations for universal provision of education
• evidence to demonstrate that a new school or major school expansion is required
187

• whether the new or expanding school would undermine the capacity of neighbouring schools to
deliver high-quality education, including due recognition of the need to offer choice of schooling
• evidence of community preferences in relation to the type of school that should be established
or expanded
• the financial contribution from the relevant sector, and demonstrate that the proposed facility will
be appropriately resourced and maintained into the future.
Recommendation 30
School Planning Authorities with government and non-government sector representation should
be established within each jurisdiction and work to develop a coordinated approach to planning
for new schools and school growth.
The Australian Government should establish a School Growth Fund for new schools and major
school expansions, with the School Planning Authorities solely responsible for the approval of
funding to projects.
Existing schools – School Infrastructure Development Grants
The Australian Government should establish a School Infrastructure Development Grants program
to address the capital needs of all existing schools. The program and associated governance
arrangements would have the following key objectives:
• improve the standard of school infrastructure over time, particularly in more needy schools
• address educational need by targeting funding to where it will have the most educational value
• improve national understanding of school infrastructure
• support education authorities to invest efficiently and effectively in school infrastructure.
It is the panel’s view that the funding amount currently provided to non-government schools under
the Capital Grants Program is appropriate and should be retained. Over and above this, the panel
considers that the Australian Government should provide an additional amount of funding for
government schools at a level equivalent to that provided to the non-government sector, adjusted to
account for the larger enrolment share in the government sector. The provision of funding from the
Australian Government should be conditional on maintenance of at least existing levels of state and
territory government capital expenditure.
Program funding would support projects that are cost-effective, target educational need, have
educational value and are innovative. It would also foster cross-sectoral collaboration and community
involvement and support.
The relevant bodies in the government and non-government sectors would have sole responsibility
for approving and managing individual projects. The non-government sector has established Block
Grant Authorities to undertake this role. Consideration should be given by state and territory education
authorities as to the most appropriate and effective means to manage this funding, including the
possibility of establishing their own Block Grant Authorities.
188

Recommendation 31
Australian Government investment in non-government school infrastructure should be
maintained and continue to be provided in partnership with relevant Block Grant Authorities.
The Australian Government should provide an additional amount of funding to support major
works and infrastructure in existing government schools in each state and territory.
Existing schools – maintenance and minor works
The panel believes that systems (including governments) and schools should continue to meet
the cost of maintaining existing school infrastructure through their recurrent funding and
therefore maintenance and minor works should be included in the calculation of the schooling
resource standard.
As discussed in Chapter 2.4, improvements should be made in how maintenance is defined to provide
clarity for systems and schools over the expectations of governments and the community in relation
to the quality and standard of school infrastructure. A clear definition of maintenance will also inform
decisions on whether the expenditure is to maintain or extend the existing stock of capital within the
school. The panel considers that the development of a national definition of maintenance should be the
responsibility of the National Schools Resourcing Body.
Recommendation 32
The National Schools Resourcing Body should develop a national definition of the maintenance
and minor works responsibilities of schools and education authorities required to be addressed
from recurrent funds. This definition should be considered and agreed by the Australian and state
and territory governments as a basis for capital and recurrent funding arrangements.
Strengthened accountability
Improving accountability is a crucial step towards improving the quality of school infrastructure. It
will provide students, teachers, parents, communities, governments and education authorities with
a better understanding of infrastructure standards within a school and how it compares to other
schools. It will mean that school communities will be able to participate in a more informed way in
discussions about capital funding needs and priorities.
Improved accountability will also provide governments and education authorities with an objective way
of prioritising projects and expenditure on school infrastructure. Over time, nationally comparable
information will be developed on the cost and quality of school infrastructure which can be used to
better target funding, and to understand the educational value of investing in school infrastructure.
There are a range of measures the panel regard as essential in improving accountability and data in
relation to school infrastructure. These are:
• The National Schools Resourcing Body will work with the states and territories and the
non-government sector to develop definitions of adequacy and quality in relation to school
infrastructure for both the government and non-government sectors.
• Government education authorities and the relevant bodies in the non-government sector will be
responsible for assessing and monitoring the condition of their schools against these standards,
and maintaining school and sector master plans.
189

• Over time, government and non-government sectors would be required to publish information
about the condition of individual schools, and decisions about infrastructure and major
works expenditure.
• The proposed School Planning Authorities will be accountable for decisions about new schools and
school expansions.
• The National Schools Resourcing Body will investigate the feasibility of a national capital resource
standard, and other cost benchmarking options, to assist with future monitoring and design of
capital expenditure programs.
Recommendation 33
The Australian and state and territory governments should, in consultation with the
non-government sector, strengthen public accountability for the public funding of school
capital projects.
Indexation arrangements
In the Capital Grants Program, supplementation for capital expenditure is calculated annually by
applying movements for the previous calendar year in the Producer Price Index – Non-Residential
Building Construction, a fixed-weight index produced by the ABS (ABS 2011b). The index covers
non-residential new construction using a component cost method, as close as possible to market
prices, that reflects labour, material and plant input costs, and subcontractors’ margins. The
supplementation figure measures the movement between successive years, calculated with a
12-month lag (DEEWR 2011a).
In submissions to the review, some parts of the non-government sector argued that a range of factors
amount to what is effectively an overall decline in the value of the Capital Grants Program. These
factors include increasing regulatory requirements and more complex application arrangements,
including things that apply disproportionately between sectors. These factors are not reflected in
the Producer Price Index – Non-Residential Building Construction. Several submissions called for a
more appropriate indexation mechanism that is inclusive of the total costs of school redevelopment
and establishment. However, other elements of the non-government sector supported the current
indexation arrangements for capital funding.
The panel considers there is not a strong case to change the indexation of capital programs, and
supports the ongoing use of the Producer Price Index – Non-Residential Building Construction.
Recommendation 34
School Infrastructure Development Grants and the School Growth Fund should be
supplemented annually in line with movements in the Producer Price Index – Non-Residential
Building Construction.
190

4.4 Governance and regulation
The schooling resource standard and the panel’s framework for funding require a more sophisticated
approach to the governance and regulation of Australia’s schooling system. In particular, the
effectiveness of the arrangements rests on confidence in the independence and transparency of the
process for setting the schooling resource standard. The extent to which all sectors and levels of
government collaborate productively is also critical.
This chapter sets out the panel’s recommendations on the governance structures and regulation
measures necessary to support the schooling resource standard and funding framework. Central to
this would be the establishment of a National Schools Resourcing Body, which would have oversight
of the development, ongoing maintenance and periodic review of the schooling resource standard,
along with a pivotal role in driving continuous improvement within the schooling sector. This chapter
also outlines proposed roles and responsibilities of funding partners within the funding framework,
as well as measures for improved public accountability and transparency of both funding and
educational outcomes.
4.4.1 National Schools Resourcing Body
Effective governance is essential to the development and ongoing viability of the schooling resource
standard. In developing the proposed funding framework, the panel considered a range of different
governance options, and concluded that the most effective means to support the framework is to
establish an independent expert body. The panel regards the independence of the body as essential to
ensuring objectivity in its advice to governments.
The panel proposes that the National Schools Resourcing Body should form the core governance
necessary to ensure that funding for schooling is provided in a way that maximises its educational
impact. In order to achieve this, the body would have a broad range of interrelated responsibilities that
would deliver a significant shift in how schools are funded. A summary of the proposed responsibilities
is outlined in Box 14.
The National Schools Resourcing Body will be responsible for the ongoing development and
maintenance of the schooling resource standard and loadings. In addition to the recalculation of
the schooling resource standard and loadings every four years, it will be required to undertake data
collection, research and analysis that will further current thinking on how to measure effectiveness
in schooling. This will necessitate significant improvements in the collection of nationally comparable
data, particularly in relation to the performance of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The
panel considers that ongoing research and continuous data improvement will ensure that the funding
framework continues to be developed and enhanced through solid evidence and intellectual rigour.
The National Schools Resourcing Body should be independent of governments. This would ensure that
the work it undertakes and the advice it provides is impartial and does not favour one school sector
over another.
However, the panel regards it as essential that governments have final approval of all matters with
budgetary implications. The National Schools Resourcing Body should not make determinations
about the level of the resource standard per student amounts or loadings, but rather provide
recommendations based on the latest evidence and data to Education Ministers for approval. Decisions
taken by Education Ministers on these recommendations, and the reasons for them, should be publicly
available to ensure that the funding process remains as open and transparent as possible.
191






Box 14: Proposed roles of the National Schools Resourcing Body
Reviewing schooling resource standard per student amounts and loadings before the start of
each quadrennium (or at some other set interval).
Calculating the annual indexation adjustment to the schooling resource standard per student
amounts according to a process agreed by the Australian Government and state and territory
Education Ministers, and recommending these to Education Ministers for approval.
Compiling data and undertaking research necessary for the above tasks in collaboration with
data-gathering bodies (for example, state and territory education departments, relevant
non-government school sector bodies, DEEWR, ACARA and the ABS).
Undertaking research and analysis on effective measurement of educational outcomes and
providing recommendations to Education Ministers to support continuous improvement in
schooling and strengthening the data collected to achieve this.
Investigating the feasibility of developing a national capital standard.
Structure and accountability
The National Schools Resourcing Body should be an independent statutory body but should be
accountable to the Australian Government and state and territory Education Ministers through
MCEECDYA. Education Ministers should be responsible for the appointment of members, and ensuring
they have the relevant expertise to fulfil the roles required of the body. These members should be
appointed on merit and not on the basis of sectoral representation.
The body’s own governance arrangements, as well as its structure and nature, would need further
consideration in relation to its functions. While the National Schools Resourcing Body would be
accountable to the Australian Government and state and territory Education Ministers, the scope of its
independence would need to be defined in legislation, along with the scope for Education Ministers to
issue directions to it in some circumstances.
The National Schools Resourcing Body would require administrative support for its day-to-day
operations, as well as ongoing management of the work, including the commissioning of relevant
research and work on data collection and improvement. A budget would be provided to enable the
National Schools Resourcing Body to operate, and to support the commissioning of research that
is directly relevant to its work. The panel proposes that funding should be shared by the Australian
Government and the states and territories, with the exact share to be determined through MCEECDYA.




Recommendation 35
The Australian Government and state and territory governments should establish a National
Schools Resourcing Body. This body would be made responsible for a range of tasks including:
the ongoing maintenance and development of the schooling resource standard and loadings
the annual indexation and periodic review of the schooling resource standard and loadings
based on the latest available data
ongoing research, analysis and data improvement to ensure continuous improvement within
the schooling sectors
developing expected standards to which school buildings must be maintained and built.
Members would be appointed to the body on the basis of merit and expertise, and be independent
of government. The body should be provided with a realistic operational budget funded by all
governments to support the commissioning of research and data work as appropriate.
192

Establishing an advisory group
It is appropriate that the schooling sectors have input into the deliberations of the National Schools
Resourcing Body. To achieve this in a formal structure, the panel proposes that MCEECDYA establish
a small advisory group to provide advice to the National Schools Resourcing Body on schooling
matters relevant to the work being undertaken and the recommendations being provided to
Education Ministers.
The advisory group would be made up of representatives across the schooling sectors. The advisory
group should be of sufficient size to ensure representation, but should be limited to maintain
functionality. Membership should include government officials, and representatives from the
non-government school sector.
Recommendation 36
In establishing a National Schools Resourcing Body, the Australian Government and state and
territory governments should also establish a representative advisory group to provide advice
to the body on schooling matters. Membership should include representatives from both the
government and non-government school sectors.
4.4.2 Roles and responsibilities of the Australian Government and the
states and territories
For the new funding framework to be supported by an effective partnership between the Australian
Government and state and territory governments, the panel believes that the roles and responsibilities
outlined in the National Education Agreement should be revisited.
The panel recognises that the states and territories have constitutional responsibilities for the delivery
and management of schooling. They require a strong degree of autonomy to meet the needs of their
state or territory, school communities and student population. The panel also recognises that the
outcomes of schooling are a national issue, influencing the economic and social wellbeing of Australia.
The current national schooling reforms are heading in the right direction, but the funding system
needs to fundamentally change to strengthen these reforms. This will require further articulation and
development of the roles of the Australian Government and the states and territories, particularly if
the Australian Government commits to investing more funding into the government sector, and if the
states and territories commit to increased investment in the non-government sector.
The panel considers the Australian Government’s roles and responsibilities should include, but not be
restricted to:
• a commitment to greater funding support for government schools based on the schooling resource
standard and loadings and the funding framework set out in Chapters 4.2 and 4.3
• driving public transparency and accountability through the expansion of performance data available
on the My School website, as well as public accountability on planning decisions through the School
Planning Authorities (see Chapter 4.3)
• continuing the current national reform agenda and additional action on the reform directions as
discussed in Chapter 5.1
• working in genuine partnership with the states and territories, respecting the role each jurisdiction
must fulfil while recognising the national importance of a high-quality school sector.
193

In return for additional Australian Government funding, particularly in support of government schools,
the states and territories should be required to commit to supporting the proposed funding framework,
including the schooling resource standard. The panel considers these specific commitments
should include:
• supporting continued national reform in schooling and working in partnership with the Australian
Government, recognising the national importance of schooling
• playing a greater role in funding non-government schools and ensuring funding certainty for the
non-government sector through appropriate legislation, as part of a more coherent approach to
funding all schools regardless of ownership
• continuing responsibility for the delivery of schooling and the provision of universal education
• enhancing local decision making, particularly enabling schools to respond to the specific
educational requirements of their local communities
• supporting greater transparency of funding allocation and the methodology used to allocate funding
to schools
• supporting improved data collection and transparency through the National Schools Resourcing
Body for the purposes of setting and reviewing schooling resource standard per student amounts
and loadings.
In addition, the panel recommends that individual state and territory agreements with the
Commonwealth be developed as schedules to the revised National Education Agreement. These
bilateral schedules will allow for the Australian Government and the states and territories to develop
transparent and locally flexible arrangements, in addition to those agreed at a national level through
a National Education Agreement. It will also provide the Australian Government with flexibility to
implement the new funding framework on a jurisdictional basis to support those states and territories
willing to commit to the funding framework. The panel considers that these state and territory
schedules should address:
• specific areas of educational performance where improvement is sought in that state or territory,
with all parties working together to achieve improvement, particularly for failing schools
• the balance of funding between the Australian Government and the states and territories, working
in partnership to achieve greater funding balance for all schools
• any state or territory specific arrangements required to transition to new funding arrangements
• funding commitments to government and non-government systems and schools in each
jurisdiction in relation to the schooling resource standard, including any proposed increases or
transitional arrangements over time.
Recommendation 37
The current National Education Agreement should be revised to ensure that it meets the
requirements of the new funding framework and reflects the renegotiated roles and responsibilities
of funding partners. This should also include the development of state- and territory-based
schedules attached to the revised agreement that reflect specific funding and educational
requirements of that jurisdiction.
194

4.4.3 Roles and expectations of non-government systems and
independent schools
The panel considers that funding agreements supported by appropriate legislation are the
most effective means of committing all parties to achieving educational outcomes and ensuring
accountability for the expenditure of public funding. Non-government school systems and independent
schools should continue to enter into a funding agreement with the Australian Government and the
states and territories in return for public funding. In signing up to the new funding framework,
non-government systems and independent schools will be required to commit to a range of measures
to improve the accountability and transparency of public funds they receive. These measures should
include, but not be restricted to:
• agreeing to the publication on the My School website of funding allocated to member schools
from all sources, as well as the level of public funding which the school would attract under the
schooling resource standard and loadings (applies to non-government systems only)
• working with the Australian Government and the states and territories to provide additional
information on the My School website. This should include information on a school’s capital stock as
recommended in Chapter 4.3. It may also include additional data as recommended by the National
Schools Resourcing Body or ACARA and as agreed to by Education Ministers
• agreeing to work with the Australian Government and the states and territories on schooling
reform and to address areas of educational underperformance in member schools
• participation in the work of School Planning Authorities and the National Schools Resourcing Body
advisory group.
Non-government schools that do not commit and comply with the conditions as outlined in the relevant
funding agreements should not be eligible for public funding.
As part of the additional requirements on non-government systems and schools, the Australian
Government and the states and territories should review data collection and reporting practices
to ensure that the reporting burden on the non-government sector is streamlined and does not
unnecessarily distract from a school’s primary function of providing quality education to its students.
Recommendation 38
The Australian Government and state and territory governments should negotiate revised funding
agreements with non-government system authorities and independent schools to reflect roles
and additional conditions under the new funding framework and in line with a renegotiated
National Education Agreement with state- and territory-based schedules.
4.4.4 Legislation
To support the funding agreements, Australian Government funding for government and
non-government schools should continue to be provided under legislation. The panel is also of the
view that state and territory government funding to non-government schools should be legislated. This
provides certainty of funding amounts for all schools and supports a greater transparency of funding
consistent with the funding principles outlined in the Deloitte Access Economics report (Deloitte
Access Economics 2011).
195

The panel recommends that agreements and legislation should support a 12-year funding cycle. This
provides additional security for schools and distances school funding from the political cycle. It also
reflects a complete cycle of education for a child and is in keeping with a funding framework where
educational outcomes represent the basis for funding through a schooling resource standard.
Legislation should be subject to periodic review in line with the review of agreements and the
schooling resource standard and loadings.
State and territory governments would continue to be responsible for the allocation of funding and
resources to individual government schools and through their systems in the most efficient and
effective ways to meet the needs of students based on their own judgments of need. They would also
be required to comply with any conditions outlined in the agreement with the Commonwealth.
Recommendation 39
The Australian Government and state and territory governments should legislate the proposed
funding framework to ensure certainty and transparency of public funding for all systems and
schools. Legislation at both levels of government should operate together to ensure that the total
level of public funding is guaranteed for all systems and schools over a 12-year cycle.
4.4.5 Strengthening regulation and accountability
A key aspect of the new funding framework will be strengthened regulation and planning
arrangements. This will include improved information on how schools are performing across a
range of nationally consistent or comparable educational measures. As well as promoting public
accountability of all schools, it enables governments to better address areas of educational
underperformance and showcase examples of educational excellence. The panel regards transparency
as essential for public accountability. It will help build community confidence in the robustness and
adequacy of funding, as well as the capacity of schools to demonstrate continuous improvement and
achieve excellent outcomes for their students.
Improved planning arrangements, particularly in the establishment of new schools and providing
schooling in growth corridors, will also be a feature.
Responsibilities for students
The Australian Government relies on the state and territory governments to operate effective school
systems and to provide an appropriate framework under which all schools can operate. The states
and territories have a range of measures to ensure that government and non-government schools
deliver appropriate education to students. These arrangements are reasonably similar in each state
and territory, particularly in relation to the requirements that ensure schools adhere to curriculum
and teacher qualifications. The panel considers that the states and territories are in the best
position to continue this role along with continuing responsibility for the registration and the ongoing
administration of all schools within their jurisdiction.
Schools have an obligation to educate and support each student with care, dignity and fairness.
The panel acknowledges that not all students fit into all types of schools. However, schools have a
responsibility to ensure that students who are unable to remain within a school are supported to find
the most appropriate learning environment for their needs.
196

Schools in receipt of public funding should have in place policies that deal with the welfare of their
students. This should extend to ensuring that students who are no longer able to attend a particular
school are supported until they are settled in a new school.
Finding 25
their needs.
All schools are responsible for supporting students who are unable to remain within a school,
and should have welfare policies that seek to find the most appropriate learning environment for
Accountability
The My School website now plays an important role in providing information on schooling to the public.
This information is particularly valuable for developing public policy. The panel considers that the
data collected by ACARA should be expanded to include a broader range of nationally comparable
educational and financial measures.
The collection of additional performance data will broaden the range of information available to
the public on schooling, improving public accountability and providing parents and caregivers with
more detailed and complete information about the school their child attends. Public reporting is
an important and effective means of achieving accountability for the expenditure of funding and
educational outcomes. The panel considers this to be a mechanism that can operate in conjunction
with other requirements established through legislation and agreements.
In addition, the funding information presented on the My School website should enable parents and
policy makers to compare the amount of funding a school is actually receiving with the estimated
public funding as calculated under the schooling resource standard and loadings methodology. This
is not intended to undermine allocative decisions made by school systems, but rather to ensure that
Australia’s schooling system as a whole is publicly transparent on both educational performance and
funding allocations.
Recommendation 40
The National Schools Resourcing Body should work with the states and territories, the
non-government school authorities and the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting
Authority (ACARA) to develop a more robust national data collection, consistent with the proposed
funding framework, that allows for a deeper national understanding of schooling outcomes. The
appropriateness of what data should be used should be jointly worked through by the Ministerial
Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, ACARA and the National
Schools Resourcing Body.
197

198

4.5 Philanthropy
As detailed in earlier chapters, schools receive funding from the Australian Government, state and
territory governments and private sources. Traditionally, private funding has been provided to schools
by families in the form of fees. In 2009, the total income8 of all Australian schools was almost
$40.4 billion, of which fees contributed $6.7 billion. In addition to fees, $1.4 billion was provided to
schools from other private sources, including donations and sources such as profit on the sale of
fixed assets, interest, dividends and profits from ‘other activities’ (ACARA dataset 2011).
Financial contributions from private sources form an important part of the overall investment in
Australia’s schools. However, the relationships that can form between schools and the community
through a range of non-monetary philanthropic activities also have a positive impact on student
outcomes. These activities can include volunteering time, the sharing of expertise and mentoring.
This chapter discusses philanthropic giving in its many forms, and how it can play a significant role
in supporting governments to improve the outcomes of students in schools, particularly schools
servicing disadvantaged communities.
4.5.1 Philanthropy in Australia
Many Australians equate philanthropy with donating money, perhaps to a disaster relief fund,
or attending a fundraising event. Philanthropy, however, is much broader in scope. According to
Philanthropy Australia, it ‘is a desire to improve the welfare of humanity through the giving of money,
time, information, goods and services, influence and voice for community good’ (Philanthropy
Australia 2011).
The most comprehensive review of philanthropy in Australia to date indicated that individuals
and businesses in Australia donate around $11 billion annually, and Australian adults volunteer
around 836 million hours of time annually (Department of Families and Community Services
2005). This represents significant social investment in Australia that is independent of investment
by governments.
An analysis of data from a recent Gallup WorldView poll has shown that Australia, along with
New Zealand, is the most generous of the 153 countries surveyed, based on the proportion of
the population giving money to charity, volunteering time and helping a stranger (Charities Aid
Foundation 2010).
While Australia may have the largest proportion of its population giving money and time to charity in
the world, we trail other countries such as the United States and England in terms of our philanthropic
monetary giving as a proportion of our GDP. In 2004, giving as a proportion of GDP in the United
States was 1.6 per cent and for Australia it was 0.68 per cent (Department of Families and Community
Services 2005).
4.5.2 Philanthropy in schooling
The education sector as a whole, which includes school education, adult and tertiary education, and
research, attracts among the highest numbers of volunteers in Australia and is the fifth highest
recipient of donations, after religious organisations, international aid, community or welfare
organisations and medical research (Department of Families and Community Services 2005).
8 Gross recurrent income received by schools from Australian Government and state and territory government funding, fees, charges, and
other private sources.
199

In submissions and consultations during the review, philanthropy was seen as an area that is currently
underdeveloped in government schools in Australia, when compared with other school sectors and
practices in other countries.
While non-government schools have been promoting philanthropic giving for decades in some
instances, it is largely a new area for government schools. This can be partly explained by historical
differences in funding between school sectors in Australia. Between the late 19th century and the
1960s, state and territory governments focused on building secular government school systems
and they—along with the federal government—did not provide funding to non-government schools
during this time. Non-government schools relied on fees, private contributions and assistance from
churches to exist, creating a culture of engaging the community in philanthropy not experienced in
government schools.
There are international examples of governments working to increase philanthropic giving in
government schools. Private investment in public education has dramatically increased in England
since the late 1990s, when a range of reforms were introduced to encourage this investment (Caldwell
2004). These reforms have included the creation of academy schools where low-achieving public
schools are partnered with corporate sponsors to plan and implement improvements in school
performance. When the initiative commenced, sponsors were required to contribute significant private
funding towards school reform. This policy has since been revised to enable high-performing schools
and universities to take on the sponsor role without having to make a financial contribution. The
academy schools are similar in concept to charter schools in the United States, which have also been
successful in attracting significant philanthropic support.
It should be noted that these initiatives have not been without controversy. While there have been clear
benefits in terms of increased investment in schooling, and in some cases improved student outcomes,
concerns have been raised around the level of influence that has been exercised by sponsors in these
countries, the sustainability of the new investment and whether these initiatives lead to improved
outcomes in the long term. It is important to learn from these initiatives and progress philanthropic
activity in an Australian context, which aligns with our vision for schooling in Australia.
4.5.3 Benefits of philanthropy in schooling
Media attention on philanthropy in schooling is often focused on donations from individuals and
businesses to school building funds and the superior facilities that result in non-government schools
with high socioeconomic status communities. However, the benefits of philanthropy should be
considered more broadly. Philanthropy can and should be used to create partnerships with those
schools that have the greatest need to improve student outcomes.
There is growing recognition that, at the local community level, many schools cannot overcome
their particular schooling challenges alone and that collective action through school and community
partnerships can help to strengthen efforts by governments to address educational disadvantage
(Black 2009). The importance of all schools developing partnerships with their communities to foster
improved student outcomes is clearly articulated in the Melbourne Declaration.
For example, the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience (AIME) is a program, supported by
universities, schools and philanthropic donors, which partners university students in a mentoring
relationship with Indigenous high school students with the aim of increasing high school completion
rates and progression to university. According to its 2010 annual report, 25.1 per cent of AIME high
school students involved in the program will progress from Year 9 through to university, compared
with the national rate for Indigenous students of 3.2 per cent. In 2011, 1000 mentors and 1000 high
200

school students were involved in the program across three states, and the AIME intends to roll out the
program to 6000 high school and university students by 2020.
The Australian Business and Community Network (ABCN) is a partnership of national business
leaders and companies working on mentoring and coaching programs with a focus on schools in
particular areas of need. In 2010, ABCN programs were run in 188 schools in all states and the
Australian Capital Territory, with 8800 students involved in activities. The ABCN Partners in Learning
Program matches principals and senior staff in schools with chief and senior executives in businesses
to share experiences, solve problems and explore leadership challenges together. This contributes
to the professional development of teachers and school leaders, another driver of improved
educational outcomes.
4.5.4 Barriers to philanthropic giving to schools
Capacity at school level
Schools have very different starting points in terms of their knowledge and capacity to seek out
and secure philanthropic donors (Anderson 2011). A school’s ability to maximise the impact of
philanthropic contributions can be limited if school leaders lack the time to utilise these resources
effectively. The centralised nature of school systems may also result in the limited discretion of
principals to make certain resourcing decisions.
Other schools have well developed contacts with business and networks within their communities, such
as alumni structures, which can generate additional funding and other support such as professional
advice to the school. This type of giving appears to primarily benefit some non-government schools
and selective government schools. In particular, it is difficult for schools in all sectors that service
low socioeconomic status communities to access resources and capabilities from their immediate
communities in the same way that schools in more affluent areas can. These schools are less likely
to have networks, the confidence to approach potential donors, or the time and resources to devote to
grant applications.
In addition, there is a misconception in the government sector that government schools are unable
to receive philanthropic support, which could stem from a lack of policy support from education
authorities. A lack of budget autonomy at the school level in some government school systems
may create the perception that funds cannot be directed to an individual school (Business–School
Connections Roundtable 2011).
Education authorities may be discouraged from actively providing support and training to promote
philanthropy by the perception that it could attract criticism that they were evading their responsibility
to adequately fund schools (Witcombe 2011). Education authorities may also be responding to
concerns in the community over philanthropic activity in government schools, including the level of
influence that corporations and other philanthropic donors may have over schools, and the time taken
to engage potential donors. The Australian Government has commissioned a consultancy to address
these concerns. The consultancy, due to report in May 2012, will develop guiding principles for
school–business relationships that are voluntary and supportive, encourage good practice and
emphasise mutual benefit.
An additional concern from education authorities may be that, because the government school
systems cater for students in communities across the socioeconomic spectrum, encouraging
philanthropic support for government schools will inevitably mean that some government schools will
have significantly more opportunities than others to make use of this opportunity.
201

Despite these issues, there have been some encouraging efforts to support philanthropic giving in
the government sector in some states and territories. A recent example is the Victorian Government’s
Business Working with Education Foundation (see Section 4.5.5).
Barriers to philanthropic giving experienced by individuals and organisations
Individuals and businesses wishing to give to schools may have limited knowledge of the best way to
provide support to specific students and schools. Unless a donor has an existing relationship with a
school, there may be difficulty in determining which school or schools to support, who to approach to
make contact, and how to coordinate philanthropic giving across a number of schools.
In particular, it can be difficult for individuals and businesses to strategically engage with education
authorities in the government sector because policy in relation to philanthropic giving to government
schools may be complex or unclear.
Limited taxation incentives to donate to schools
A number of submissions to the review indicated that tax incentives are an important consideration
for private individuals, charitable funds or foundations and businesses when making donations,
particularly for major giving.
Certain organisations or funds can be endorsed by the Australian Taxation Office to receive income
tax deductible gifts and are referred to as deductible gift recipients (DGRs). Tax deductible gifts can, in
general, only be made for the following:
• the acquisition, construction or maintenance of a building
• scholarships, bursaries or prizes
• other specified areas (gifts made to public funds established for religious education in government
schools; the acquisition, construction or maintenance of rural school hostel buildings; and
government schools that provide special education for students all of whom have disabilities)
(Australian Taxation Office 2011).
Some state and territory trust laws limit the ability of government schools to receive DGR status
donations. In some instances, P&C associations have created DGRs to receive donations on
behalf of government schools. Non-government schools do not face the same barrier to receiving
donations. Differences in state and territory trust laws have led to a widespread misconception that
government schools are unable to benefit from DGR status donations (Business–School Connections
Roundtable 2011).
As there is a significant administrative burden to endorse and administer DGRs, current arrangements
are viewed to disadvantage schools with limited capacity to allocate resources to these tasks. Over the
last two years, measures to reduce the administrative burden on the not-for-profit sector have been
introduced by the Australian Government. A taskforce has commenced work to establish a
‘one-stop-shop’ regulator of the sector, the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission,
by 1 July 2012. The commission will be responsible for providing education and support to the sector
on technical matters (Shorten 2011). This work may have a role in clearing up misconceptions about
donations to government schools and reduce barriers to creating DGRs.
202

4.5.5 Current approaches to philanthropic giving to schools
Aside from donations made directly from individuals to schools, which are often a result of existing
relationships between schools and their communities, there are other models for philanthropic giving
to schools in Australia.
The Business Working with Education Foundation is an example of a public intermediary established
by the Victorian Government in 2010. It was created to provide a simple mechanism for business
to provide philanthropic support to government schools in particular. It assists individuals and
businesses to connect with key stakeholders inside and outside the Victorian Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development, and provides support for schools and not-for-profit organisations to
develop partnerships (Business Working with Education Foundation 2010).
The Public Education Foundation is a not-for-profit charity established in 2008 that works with the New
South Wales Department of Education and Communities to provide scholarships for disadvantaged
students with particular education needs in government schools (Public Education Foundation 2011).
It provides various options for individuals and organisations to contribute to the foundation, from
one-off donations to volunteering opportunities, through to opportunities for businesses to create
scholarship funds.
These approaches are relatively new, and it will be some time before their success can be evaluated.
Nevertheless, there is clear potential for these approaches to promote philanthropic giving in
government schools. Firstly, the entities remove the burden of establishing and administering
deductible gift recipients from school staff or P&C associations. They act as an intermediary between
government schools and businesses or other donors that may not have the time, skills or experience
to make those connections themselves, and are a source of information to donors and schools on the
most effective ways to proceed with a philanthropic relationship.
The entities also work with state and territory governments to target funds to priority areas, such as
identified disadvantaged government schools. They allow for donations to be secured from multiple
sources and consolidated for widespread and/or strategic impact, such as for scaling up existing
proven initiatives. Funds can be invested strategically across regions or clusters of schools, without
givers having to negotiate multiple relationships.
The Queensland Government has adopted a different approach, partnering with Indigenous leaders
and educators, the Australian Government, universities and philanthropic groups to form the
Stronger Smarter Institute and the Cape York Institute. This approach focuses on programs to develop
Indigenous school leaders and improve educational outcomes for Indigenous students.
Although funds created by governments for philanthropic activities in schools are relatively new, other
philanthropic funds and foundations focused on school education are more established. For example,
the Foundation for Young Australians, which has origins dating back to the late 1970s, conducts
research, programs, advocacy and other philanthropic activities to provide opportunities for young
people to take a lead role in their school and community.
A number of businesses have developed their own programs aimed at fostering partnerships with
schools and assisting disadvantaged students. For example, Stockland has partnered with Fairfield
High School in New South Wales to implement a number of initiatives, including ‘Our Faces, Our
Stories’, a literacy and mentoring program for students, many of whom are refugees (Stockland 2010).
There are also cross-sectoral collaborative approaches to philanthropic giving to schools. The
Linking Schools and Early Years Project is a collaborative cross-sectoral venture funded by a private
203

philanthropic trust, the R E Ross Trust and run by the Centre for Community Child Health at the Royal
Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. It brings together a number of Australian Government and Victorian
Government departments, the Catholic Education Office, The University of Melbourne, the University
of New South Wales, and the Education Foundation to bridge the gap between early years services
and primary schooling in disadvantaged areas. It helps schools engage with families to overcome the
barriers faced by vulnerable children when starting school (Black 2009).
4.5.6 Potential approaches to encourage philanthropic giving
A fund to encourage philanthropic giving to schools in low socioeconomic areas
Despite recent initiatives to increase philanthropy in schooling, it is clear that more can be done to
encourage activity in this area. Approaches to encourage philanthropy in schools should increase
their capacity to form philanthropic relationships, reduce barriers to private investment, and
provide national leadership and direction in focusing philanthropic activity to all disadvantaged
school communities.
The panel considers that there is scope for the Australian Government, in consultation with the
schooling sectors, to develop a philanthropic fund with deductible gift recipient status focused on
assisting schools to develop philanthropic partnerships.
The fund could work alongside existing public and private funds and community organisations,
including those established by state and territory governments, to raise awareness of the importance
of improving educational outcomes to Australia’s prosperity. It would also provide information on how
to donate to schools and facilitate connections between donors and education providers across the
country. This fund would not replace existing connections between schools and the community, but
provide a vehicle for strategic investment and national leadership.
The fund could operate in conjunction with the proposed National Schools Resourcing Body, possibly
in partnership with a private partner or partners. It could operate by attracting support (cash and
in-kind) from businesses and other trusts and foundations, private individuals and communities.
These donations would fund initiatives designed to improve student outcomes, particularly in low
socioeconomic areas.
The fund’s scope of giving should be wide. It should include the traditional school building
improvements and scholarship categories, but also allow for much wider injections of funds for the
improvement of schools in low socioeconomic areas or serving students from such areas. To this end,
the fund should be established to allow donors to influence how funds are directed, if they wish to
support a specific school or community.
The fund should also have a role in assisting disadvantaged schools to develop capacity to advance
philanthropic partnerships. This could be achieved by the fund having on staff a group of people
with philanthropic experience and capacity to support individual schools and/or regions to develop
philanthropic partnerships for the purposes of specific projects or indeed generally. The cost of such
a group could perhaps be funded by the Australian Government on the basis that the return from such
investments will have a ‘multiplier’ effect.
Clusters or networks of schools and community organisations in disadvantaged areas could work with
the fund and state education providers to strategically direct resources to where they are most needed
and where they will have the highest impact. The fund could have a role in scaling up effective
small-scale pilot programs and implementing them across state and territory borders.
204

Capacity building
Approaches to build capacity in schools to develop partnerships with business and the community,
including those with a philanthropic element, have recently been canvassed in Realising potential:
Businesses helping schools to develop Australia’s future, a report by the Australian Government
Business–School Connections Roundtable. Among other initiatives, the report recommended that the
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership ensure that:
• the support material developed for the National Professional Standards for Principals and the
National Professional Standards for Teachers include recognition of the role of principals and
teachers in benefiting students by building relationships with business and the broader community
• professional learning which is developed to support the standards include components through
which principals and teachers can develop their knowledge of, and competency in, building
relationships with business and the broader community.
This appears to be a relatively cost-neutral approach to increasing skills and expertise in community
engagement at the school level, and can also help to foster the development of philanthropic
relationships.
Finding 26
RealisingThe panel notes the Australian Government’s response to the recommendations in the
potential: Businesses helping schools to develop Australia’s future report, particularly those aimed
at building capacity in schools to develop partnerships with community and business.
Increase taxation incentives for donations to government schools
There has been debate on the effectiveness and efficiency of tax incentives in increasing philanthropic
giving (McGregor-Lowndes, Newton and Marsden 2006). There is limited Australian data to determine
the impact of increasing tax incentives. Analysis recently undertaken by the Productivity Commission
on international data indicates that tax deductions were likely to increase charitable donations in the
education sector by more than the reduction in taxation revenue (Productivity Commission 2010).
Submissions to the review from the business sector also indicated that tax incentives would encourage
greater giving.
It is clear that taxation incentives can be a factor when potential donors evaluate whether they will give
to a recipient in the first instance. This initial donation can open a conversation between donor and
recipient that may lead to ongoing philanthropic relationships (Scaife 2011).
The panel agreed that creating a national fund with deductible gift recipient status would be an
appropriate and effective approach to schools having to navigate through taxation requirements when
receiving philanthropic support. The panel supports providing means to make donations to government
schools tax deductible but not in a prescribed way, so that there is flexibility to direct donations to
areas of greatest need subject to the wishes of the donor.
As well as removing the necessity for administering donations from government school staff or
P&C associations that do not have the expertise and resources, a fund would work to assist giving
across the government school sector so that schools in the most need could be supported.
205

4.5.7 Conclusion
There is evidence that Australians have a preparedness to donate time, money and expertise, and data
show a significant level of giving. Philanthropic giving, as one aspect of community engagement with
schools, is beneficial to students and should be encouraged.
It is important that incentives to philanthropic giving not only encourage traditional methods of giving
to schools, but focus on leveraging improved educational outcomes for students, particularly in
schools servicing disadvantaged communities.
Nationally, better arrangements could exist for schools and donors to make connections, and provide
a more strategic focus for philanthropic giving. This presents an opportunity for the Australian
Government to take a leadership role in profiling the importance of business and community
engagement with schools, and using emerging collaborative models of philanthropy to facilitate this.
Recommendation 41
The Australian Government should create a fund to provide national leadership in philanthropy in
schooling, and to support schools in need of assistance to develop philanthropic partnerships.
206

4.6 Modelled results of the new schooling
resource standard
The panel commissioned modelling to test the feasibility and impacts of the schooling resource
standard and funding model set out in Chapters 4.2 and 4.3 of this report.
In commissioning the modelling, the panel had to make a number of determinations that are set out
below. These determinations and results of the modelling confirm that the new framework is workable
and will achieve the objectives sought by the panel. It also satisfies the Australian Government’s
commitment that no school would lose a dollar per student as a result of this review.
The panel proposes that its determinations and the model arising from them should be thoroughly
tested and refined in the months following the date of this review. In particular, the panel believes
that the determinations and the model generally should be refined in discussion with each state and
territory government and also representatives of non-government schools.
The final shape of the funding arrangements can be determined only on the basis of such
consultations. It is for this reason that the panel has given the ranges of its determinations and the
outcomes of its modelling as a first stage and not as a final and binding statement.
The panel also understands that there will be significant issues to work through, including the fiscal
constraints on governments at the present time. However, the panel believes that this work is urgent
and that the necessary discussions and refinement of the model should commence as early as
possible so that it can be implemented from 2014, when the existing arrangements for
non-government schools are due to end.
Panel’s determinations to allow modelling of the schooling resource standard
The modelling of the new schooling resource standard requires two sets of determinations. The first
is to determine the level of the primary and secondary per student amounts and the second is to
determine the loadings to be applied on top of the per student amounts.
As a basis for setting per student amounts, the panel adopted an initial student outcome benchmark
based on schools where at least 80 per cent of students are achieving above the national minimum
standard for their year level, in both reading and numeracy, across each of the three years 2008–2010.
Based on this, and the methodology described in Chapter 4.2, the panel has determined indicative
estimates based on 2009 data of the per student amounts as described in Table 21.
The second determination was of the loadings, expressed as percentages of the per student amounts,
for student- and school-based sources of disadvantage. These would apply where additional resources
are needed to provide the same opportunities as in schools with minimal educational disadvantage.
Indicative ranges for these are set out in Table 22.
207

Primary
About $8,000 About $10,500
Table 21: Schooling resource standard per student amounts – indicative estimates
2009 (excluding loadings)
Secondary
Indicative estimate
(excluding loadings)
Table 22: Schooling resource standard loadings – indicative ranges
From (lower end of range) To (upper end of range)
10% 100%
School size and location
for medium-sized schools in remote locations for very small schools in very remote locations
10% 50%
Indigeneity
40%
Indigenous
100%
15% 25%
Low socioeconomic
status for each low SES student in schools with under
10% of students in the lowest SES quarter
for each low SES student in schools with more
than 75% of students in the lowest SES quarter
for each Indigenous student in schools with
between 5% and 25% of students who are for each Indigenous student in schools with more
than 75% of students who are Indigenous
Limited English
language proficiency for each student with limited English proficiency for each student with limited English proficiency
(for example, recently arrived refugees)
As acknowledged earlier in the report, both the resource standard per student amounts and the
loadings will require further work with the states and territories and non-government sector to
develop and check these initial estimates. This will need to be progressed urgently in the first half
of 2012 to facilitate negotiations over the implementation of the new funding arrangements and
to enable governments to conclude negotiations leading to legislation in the second half of 2012.
Once it is established, the National Schools Resourcing Body will provide independent and expert
advice to governments on setting and updating the primary and secondary per student amounts and
the loadings.
Results of the modelling
The panel modelled the impact of these arrangements on government expenditures based on
determinations about the indicative 2009 level of the schooling resource standard per student amounts
and loadings and the arrangements for public funding. On the basis of these determinations, the
modelling results indicated that, if these arrangements had been implemented in full during 2009,
the additional cost to governments would have been about $5 billion or around 15 per cent of all
governments’ recurrent funding for schooling that year.
All sectors would have received increased government funding, but the largest part of this increase
(about three-quarters) would have occurred in the government sector reflecting both its share
of student enrolments and the relative extent of concentrated disadvantage across sectors. The
remainder of the increase would have occurred across the Catholic and independent sectors.
208

The panel also made determinations regarding how the schooling resource standard should be
funded. In the government sector, it has recommended arrangements in which the Australian and
state and territory governments together take full responsibility for funding the recurrent costs
of schooling for government schools. Governments would also fully publicly fund a small number of
non-government schools.
As suggested in Chapter 4.3, the panel has recommended that most non-government schools would
receive public funding on the basis of an anticipated private contribution related to the SES score of the
school. A minimum anticipated private contribution of 10 per cent of the resource standard per student
amounts would apply for schools in the lowest quarter of school SES scores, that is, with a score up to
between 90 and 95. A maximum anticipated private contribution of between 75 and 80 per cent of the
resource standard per student amounts would apply for schools with an SES score above around 130.
Based on its current proportion of total funding, the Australian Government would bear around
30 per cent of the increase. How the additional cost is actually borne will need to be discussed and
negotiated between all governments. It would be a decision for the Australian Government as to
whether it is prepared to bear more of the increase to assist the states and territories in giving effect
to the new schooling resource standard. It is imperative that governments work collaboratively to
finalise the necessary details and negotiate appropriate funding responsibilities, even if this involves
these additional commitments being made over a period of years.
The panel acknowledges that this would represent a significant increase on existing levels of
public funding at a time when all governments are facing serious fiscal pressures due to economic
uncertainty and competing priorities for public expenditure. However, the panel is strongly of the
view that introduction of a schooling resource standard is required urgently from 2014 in Australia’s
national interest. Therefore, it is imperative that all governments work collaboratively to finalise
without delay the necessary details and negotiate appropriate funding responsibilities. The justification
for this additional investment is set out in Chapter 4.7.
209

210

4.7 Justification for additional investment in
Australian schooling
The panel’s new framework for resourcing Australian schools, when modelled based on the Australian
Government’s announcement that no school would lose a dollar per student as a result of this review
and the determinations made by the panel and set out in Chapter 4.6, results in a significant additional
investment being needed by governments. The panel accepts that resources alone will not bring
about real change and that extensive reform is also required to the delivery of schooling. Chapter 5.1
notes that these broader reforms need to address teaching practice and quality, school autonomy
and leadership, high expectations of schools and students, and the creation of 21st century learning
opportunities, among other areas.
The need for additional investment is not a surprising result to the panel for several reasons.
Firstly, the new funding arrangements must be aspirational and reverse the slippage evident in
our overall schooling performance over the past decade. The absolute decline in performance as
measured by PISA in reading and mathematical literacy is evident at all levels of achievement.
Australia’s weak performance in reading and mathematics compared to Canada (a similar country) and
Singapore (our nearest Asian neighbour participating in PISA) illustrates a serious cause for concern
and suggests significant educational reform is needed to address the competitive disadvantage our
children face.
A worrying proportion of Australia’s 15 year-olds perform in PISA at a level which puts them at serious
risk of not being able to adequately participate in the workforce and contribute as productive citizens.
In PISA 2009, 14 per cent of Australian 15 year-olds did not achieve the baseline level of reading
proficiency at which students begin to demonstrate the skills that will enable them to participate
effectively and productively in life. While this was below the OECD average (19 per cent), it was
significantly higher than in high-performing countries such as Korea (6 per cent), Finland (8 per cent)
and Canada (10 per cent) (OECD 2010).
Up to half of the students who do not reach this baseline proficiency level come from the bottom
quartile of PISA’s index of economic, social and cultural status. However, there are at least as many
underperformers in higher quartiles of the index. This implies that extra financial resources on their
own are not sufficient to meet the education needs of all students. Settings for the schooling resource
standard per student amounts also need to reflect the aspiration to improve performance across
the board.
Secondly, Australia faces a very serious challenge in improving the equity of schooling outcomes for
children from disadvantaged social backgrounds. In the 2009 PISA assessments, around one-quarter
of Australian 15 year-olds in the lowest economic, social and cultural status quartile performed at a
level which puts them at serious risk of not being able to adequately participate in the workforce and
contribute as productive citizens.
Over 80 per cent of students who did not reach the level required for proficiency to participate in
society in reading and mathematics are in government schools. They represent about 19 to 21 per cent
of government school students, compared to between 8 and 10 per cent for Catholic schools and
between 5 and 8 per cent for independent schools. (Thomson et al. 2011). The concentration of this
problem in government schools is evidence of the need for a greater increase in resources in those
schools in particular.
211

Finally, these results are a warning that Australia cannot take for granted that we will forever have a
productive workforce and a citizenry equipped to prosper in and contribute to the rest of the world as
we do now. With increasingly intense global competition for innovative, creative and skilled people,
Australia needs to work harder and more cleverly than ever to maintain a knowledge and skill base
that can adapt to change and keep up with the world around us. Australia’s declining educational
performance internationally is something of which no Australian can be proud. Turning this around will
require concerted effort and attention and will take time.
Above all, the additional investment needed to implement a schooling resource standard is necessary
because, without it, the high cost of poor educational outcomes will become an even greater drag on
Australia’s social and economic development in the future. The need for the additional expenditure and
the application of what those funds can do is urgent. Australia will only slip further behind unless, as a
nation, we act and act now.
212

5 Building momentum
for change

214

5.1 Building momentum for change
The panel’s proposed funding arrangements provide a framework for funding reform that aims to
move Australia to a high-performing and high-equity schooling system. Central to this reform is the
allocation of resources according to the needs of students, regardless of the sector in which they go
to school.
While the allocation of resources to areas of greatest need is a necessary condition for achieving
improvements in performance across the schooling system, it is not a sufficient condition for doing so.
Excellent teaching and school leadership, the ability of schools to allocate and manage resources at
the school level, innovative approaches to teaching and learning, effective engagement with parents
and the community, and quality assurance mechanisms are all essential elements of a successful
schooling system. Many of these factors are being progressed by Australian governments through the
national schooling reform agenda.
In this final chapter the panel discusses the current national schooling reforms and the essential
elements of a successful schooling system. While the primary purpose of this report has been to
recommend a future funding system for Australian schooling which is transparent, fair, financially
sustainable and effective in promoting excellent outcomes, the panel acknowledges that improvements
in schooling depend on the collaboration of governments and schooling sectors to drive reform in
every classroom in every school. The panel’s funding recommendations are designed to strengthen
the current national schooling reforms and build the momentum needed to achieve the sustained
improvements Australia’s schooling system urgently requires.
Although much research exists on the key success factors in schooling, this chapter does not set out
to discuss the research. Rather, it makes comment on the factors the panel considers to be important
in promoting excellent outcomes for all Australian students, as foreshadowed in the review’s terms
of reference.
5.1.1 The foundations for change
In recent years, all Australian governments have embarked on an ambitious agenda of national
schooling reforms. The reforms have created a foundation for improvement at every stage of learning
from early childhood and transition to school, through to Year 12 and the transition to further
education and work.
Early childhood reforms have focused on seeking to ensure that children start school healthy and
ready to learn. A key priority of governments through the AEDI is to identify each child’s stage of
learning on entry to school, so that children facing developmental barriers can be given the attention
needed to catch up with their peers. These children are often from disadvantaged backgrounds, but
this is not always the case.
The new Australian Curriculum, which is currently being implemented across all states and territories
and schooling sectors, encompasses Australia’s aspirations for its young people in terms of the
knowledge, understanding, skills and personal qualities and capabilities that they should acquire
in schooling.
A number of reforms are focused on improving the effectiveness and capability of the teaching
profession in Australia. National Professional Standards for Teachers are being introduced, in
consultation with the teaching profession, to define the requisite skills, knowledge and capacities
across the four stages of a teacher’s career—the graduate, proficient, highly accomplished and lead
215

teacher stages. The Graduate Standards will be an essential element of the national accreditation of
teacher training courses, which will aim to ensure that all teachers receive the quality of preparation
needed to be fully effective on graduation. The Proficient Standards will underpin a nationally
consistent approach to teacher registration. The Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher Standards
are voluntary career stages for teachers to aspire and progress to. National Professional Standards for
Principals have also been developed and agreed with the profession. These standards place greater
emphasis on the principal as an educational leader and mentor of teaching staff.
A Charter for the Professional Learning of Teachers and School Leaders has been developed in
consultation with the profession. It calls on all Australian teachers and school leaders, and on those
who determine policy and make decisions in schools, sectors and systems, to take responsibility for
their own learning and to commit to building a purposeful, active and pervasive learning culture in
every school and workplace.
A new National Teacher Performance and Development Framework will be developed and
introduced in schools across Australia from 2013, as a process of ongoing quality assurance for
the profession. The framework will seek to enable all teachers to receive regular and constructive
feedback on their performance each year, so that they are able to identify their needs for further
professional development.
Reforms have also sought to bring decision making as close as possible to the point at which learning
takes place. The Empowering Local Schools National Partnership will provide greater independence
for schools in decisions about the funding of education programs and the selection of staff. Research
shows a strong correlation between such local flexibility and the achievement of high-quality learning,
particularly when local flexibility is combined with accountability through the public reporting of
school performance.
An important part of the national schooling reforms has been the focus on transparency and
accountability in schooling. Greater access to information leads to better decision making at both a
policy level and service delivery level. Through the My School website, teachers, parents and students
are able to access information to make more informed choices about schools, and policy makers have
access to information to understand how well a school is achieving, and the level of support that might
be required to help it reach its goals.
Increased national transparency of schooling outcomes has prompted a significant shift in the way
schools and school systems think about school evaluation and improvement. A school improvement
framework will be developed nationally so that all schools will be able to evaluate and review their
practices and performance against national and local measures. This will help schools identify their
strengths and weaknesses, and develop a comprehensive school improvement strategy.
As noted in Chapter 1.2, the attainment of Year 12 or an equivalent qualification is an important
goal for young people to reach if they are to reap the financial and social benefits of education when
they join the workforce, either on leaving school or after a period of further education. The National
Youth Participation Requirement, agreed to by all Australian governments in 2009, has resulted in
a nationally consistent school leaving age. Under this initiative, young people must complete Year
10 and must stay in school or training until age 17. This initiative is complemented by strengthened
participation requirements for income support arrangements and national reforms focused at
engaging students at risk of dropping out of school or who have left the schooling system.
216

5.1.2 National purpose and goals for Australian schooling
The national schooling reforms align with the national purpose and goals for schooling agreed to by all
Australian governments in 2008 though the Melbourne Declaration.
The goals focus on promoting equity and excellence in schooling and on young Australians becoming
successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens. Central to
realising these goals is providing all students with access to high-quality schooling—schooling that
teaches students to create their own futures, solve problems, discover their talents, learn how to learn,
and apply their knowledge across disciplines.
The Melbourne Declaration also acknowledges that the education of young people is the collective
responsibility of all of society—governments, schooling sectors, individual schools, parents, business
and the broader community. Collaborative effort is required to transform Australia’s schooling system.
As discussed in Chapter 1.2, the Melbourne Declaration embraces goals in the cognitive domain of
learning (what young people know and understand, and the skills they possess), and in the affective
domain (their personal characteristics and attributes), which are also important goals of teaching and
learning. In the Australian Curriculum these broader outcomes of schooling are included as general
capabilities. Employers often refer to them as employability skills.
Academic goals are far more readily measured and reported by external testing than general
capabilities. However, an excessive focus on what is testable, measurable and publicly reportable
carries the risk of an imbalance in the school curriculum. Independence, confidence, initiative and
teamwork are learned as much through elements of the curriculum that are not readily measured by
an external test as through those areas in which outcomes can be readily tested and reported.
5.1.3 A great teaching profession
The impact of quality teachers on student engagement and performance is well documented and
cannot be underestimated (Goodwin 2010; Hattie 2008; Levin 2008). Barber and Mourshead (2007)
found that the quality of an education system depends on the quality of its teachers.
Australia’s teachers and school leaders must be valued by the community. Teaching should be
regarded as among the most important and respected occupations in our society. It is teachers and
school leaders, in partnership with parents, who are directly responsible for developing, guiding
and influencing Australia’s future generation. Excellence in teaching, in all schools and at all levels
of schooling, is by far the single most important factor in achieving sustained improvements in the
performance of Australia’s schooling system.
The National Professional Standards for Teachers will seek to build public confidence in the teaching
profession by providing a nationally agreed quality assurance mechanism. However, this initiative
needs to be strengthened by community attitudes that value teachers and the teaching profession.
Lessons can be learned from the world’s leading schooling systems, where teaching is a high-status
profession. In these systems, competition from school students to become teachers is strong and only
the best are selected. For example, Finland has raised the social status of its teaching profession to a
level where there are few occupations with higher status, and a master’s degree is required to enter it
(OECD 2011a). In addition, countries that have succeeded in making teaching an attractive profession
have offered teachers greater career prospects, providing responsibility as professionals and leaders
of reform.
217

In a recent report, the Productivity Commission (2011) recognises that the effectiveness and efficiency
of the teaching workforce has a key role to play in improving educational outcomes for students. It
acknowledges the national schooling reforms and workforce reforms already underway, and sets out a
number of opportunities to build on these reforms. These opportunities include improved pre-service
teacher practicum and induction experiences through innovative university–school partnerships and
supportive learning experiences in school classrooms.
Excellent teaching
In addition to raising the profile of the teaching profession, schooling sectors should continue to focus
on achieving teaching excellence in every classroom in every school through allocating resources
under the schooling resource standard to this endeavour. There are a number of elements that are key
to excellent teaching and improving the performance of students, schools and the system as a whole.
Firstly, the learning needs of students should be identified on entry to schooling. NAPLAN testing of
literacy and numeracy at Year 3 is too late to be an entry-level diagnostic tool. In-school diagnosis
of skills in reading and number sequencing when children enter schooling at age 5 is the key to a
sound foundation for successful learning in the later years. Where children are found not to be at the
expected proficiency level, intervention should be immediately available, either for small groups of
children or as individuals.
Research on the importance of early identification and remediation suggests that funding priority be
given to the training of teachers in the use of the available diagnostic tools, and in the interpretation of
results. Funding must also be available to the school to access the appropriate interventions according
to the diagnosed needs of the children.
The second key element is the training of teachers in using the curriculum as a resource upon which
to draw, to shape learning programs to stretch individual children from their current stage of learning
to the next achievable stage. This involves employing personalised learning strategies. This approach
recognises that each child, both the high achieving and the low achieving, should be challenged by
learning that is currently beyond their reach, but in the judgment of the teacher, achievable with
application and effort.
Thirdly, excellent teaching can be fostered through quality instructional leadership provided by the
principal and other senior and experienced staff. Creating a whole-of-school approach to teaching
and learning, and working with individual teachers with students and in their own classrooms, is the
fundamental role of the principal. The bulk of a teacher’s ongoing professional development—in the
identification of the learning needs, the selection of interventions, the personalisation of learning, and
the use of formative or diagnostic assessments—should be done on the job working with students in
the classroom, under the mentorship of experienced instructional leaders.
Finally, excellent teaching requires a whole-of-school shared understanding of what constitutes good
pedagogy. This involves a shared commitment among staff to achieve the standards of pedagogy to
which they aspire, a commitment by each individual teacher to maintain and enhance their pedagogical
skills by taking responsibility for their own professional learning throughout their careers, and a
school culture which promotes and values open discussion and constructive criticism among teaching
peers. More time must be made available for teachers and instructional leaders to reflect upon and
plan their teaching practice, and to work together in classrooms to grow and enhance their skills.
218

5.1.4 Empowered schools and leadership
Research has found that school leadership is second only to teaching in its impact on learning, and has
the greatest impact in those schools where the learning needs of students are most acute (Leithwood
et al. 2004). Studies have shown that school leaders who are able to make decisions, including
decisions about hiring staff and over the school budget, do well in terms of student achievement,
providing there are measures of school accountability (Woessmann et al. 2007).
All school leaders and their communities should be empowered to rethink the traditional mode in
which schools operate to better meet the learning needs of students, as well as their families and
communities. They should have a greater capacity to introduce more flexible school hours to cater
for the needs and circumstances of students and their families. There should be greater scope to
reconfigure classroom structures to meet the learning needs of different cohorts. School leaders
should also make local arrangements to respond to particular needs related to student welfare,
mental health and school readiness, and work directly with local public or not-for-profit providers of
human services more broadly.
With greater autonomy and budgetary control, schools are best placed to make decisions about how
best to use resources, such as tailoring school timetables to meet student needs, hiring specialist help
such as literacy and numeracy specialists, and making more time available for teachers to plan or
prepare for classes.
Principals and the management committees of non-systemic schools have significant discretion
over the budgeting and resourcing of their schools. While it may be unrealistic to provide a similar
level of autonomy to systemic schools, it is clear that some systemic schools, particularly those in
the government sector, require greater autonomy and flexibility in decision making than is currently
the case. However, this autonomy should not interfere with the important role that systems play in
supporting systemic schools. The support that most systems provide to their member schools—in
the form of regional or diocesan specialist expertise in areas such as curriculum, student welfare,
counselling, professional development and administration—is valuable. Similarly, the operational
scope of systems gives them a capacity for resourcing and driving reform and innovation in an
efficient way.
5.1.5 Developing and sustaining innovation
Developing and sustaining innovation in Australia is critical to maintaining competitiveness in the
global economy, and the ability to respond quickly to new developments. Hannon (2009) argues that
practices and ideas about leadership, learning, collaboration and the release of collective creativity,
which are commonplace in today’s workplaces and enterprises, should be a central aim of schools in
equipping students for the 21st century.
There is a clear need for young Australians to understand, use and develop new technologies and
innovative capability with confidence. Some schools in Australia are promoting innovation through new
approaches to teaching that is transforming the way students think and learn. These schools are using
creative classroom design to create optimal, non-traditional learning spaces that meet the educational
needs of individual students.
A whole-of-school culture that embraces innovation and change can encourage students to be
reflective, analytical and adaptable about learning. Schools that embrace innovation and change
champion the development of 21st century skills, such as problem solving, creative and critical
thinking and collaboration. They also foster partnerships with parents and the community to enrich
teaching and learning.
219

These practices should continue and grow across the schooling system. They could be used to address
some of the more unique challenges Australia faces, such as providing high-quality education to
students in very remote parts of the country. They could also support teacher professional learning
and social networking, helping teachers to share successful teaching practice and pedagogy.
5.1.6 Engaged parents
Parental engagement (including carers and legal guardians) has a large and positive impact on
children’s learning (Goodall and Vorhaus 2011). The important role parents can play in schooling is
reflected in the Melbourne Declaration and the National Education Agreement.
Parents and teachers should work in partnership to set high expectations and support children in
their learning and development. Parents should also be supported by the school to contribute to the
school’s culture and operation. This works best when the parental engagement strategy is part of a
whole-of-school approach, and teachers are offered professional learning on how to effectively engage
with parents.
Parents need clear, specific and targeted information from schools about their child’s learning and
development. This can happen through regular dialogue with the teacher and principal, and keeping
abreast of the outcomes of both the child and the school as a whole. Parents can also play a valuable
role in the operation of the school, and by assisting in the classroom and through management and
decision making through school boards and councils.
The increased use of the internet, through initiatives such as the My School website, has facilitated
communication between schools and families, and the increased engagement of parents in their
children’s learning. There is an opportunity to build on these initiatives to further engage parents,
particularly at critical points in education, such as the transition point between primary and secondary
schooling. Innovative approaches that connect parents with their child’s learning through interactive
online environments should continue and be expanded upon.
5.1.7 Community involvement
Community engagement and linkages with school facilities create a positive image for the school and
a sense of ownership for the community. Schools have the potential to become hubs for all levels of
education within a community. This could involve using school facilities to provide early childhood
learning through to adult learning. Schools within a region could also share resources and facilities
with neighbouring schools.
In addition to parents, members of the community can play an important role on school boards and
councils. Some schools may be too small to have a separate board, but one advisory board with
community representation could work across schools within a defined region. Community involvement
can also extend to inviting those in the community with particular skills or expertise, such as artists,
musicians or athletes, to enhance the teaching of certain areas of the curriculum and enrich the
school experience.
As set out in Chapter 4.5, there is a great desire and capacity in the Australian community to
strengthen schools through philanthropic partnerships. Businesses and individuals can help
address the disadvantage experienced by students both within schools and the broader community.
There can be flow-on benefits that not only provide improved educational outcomes, but also greater
post-school opportunities.
220

5.1.8 Quality assurance
The schooling resource standard seeks to address areas of need and provide systems and schools with
greater flexibility in the use of resources. With that responsibility comes the need for accountability
for the expenditure of public funds, which involves the systematic use of evidence and data to drive
improved performance and greater equity.
The increasing devolution of budgetary authority to schools has also created a need for increased
public accountability for the expenditure of funds provided by Australian governments. It is important
that accountability for the expenditure of funds in schools does not solely rely on the evidence and data
that are provided by external tests such as NAPLAN. While literacy and numeracy are core elements
of the curriculum, other broader schooling outcomes can be strong indicators of school improvement
and the quality of education.
External auditing processes of school achievement could be examined, such as the Ofsted inspection
model in England and the use of the Teaching and Learning School Improvement Framework in
Queensland, which is an external audit process developed by the Australian Council for Educational
Research.
An independent external quality assurance authority, comprised of highly skilled and experienced
teacher professionals, could provide schools, parents and the community with authoritative and sound
assessments of school achievement. It could assess, on the basis of their professional expertise, the
school’s own evaluation against the National School Improvement Framework, identify areas of high
achievement, and make recommendations on areas for any further work. This approach could be
particularly beneficial in assisting underachieving schools to drive improved outcomes.
5.1.9 Conclusion
There is universal agreement among governments, teacher unions, principal associations, parent
bodies, schooling systems and sector organisations on the need for school improvement and
educational reform in Australia.
All Australian governments and schooling sectors have demonstrated a willingness and ability to work
together through the national schooling reform agenda. This agenda has provided a solid foundation
for reform and has started to drive improvements in Australia’s schooling system. The ability to build
on and strengthen these reforms through continued collaborative partnerships between governments
and the non-government school sector will be key to the success of the funding reform recommended
in this report.
Additional resources are required to achieve sustained improvements and move Australia to a
high-performing and high-equity schooling system. These resources must be targeted at those
school-based and classroom-based teaching and learning strategies which are critical to success.
The panel understands the challenges for governments across Australia in implementing its
recommendations. The new funding arrangements it recommends will—year by year—steadily make
real the shared aspirations for Australian schooling, and for the cultural richness, competitiveness and
prosperity of the nation.
Australia and its children, now and in the future, deserve nothing less.
221

222

Appendicies

224

Appendix A – Terms of reference for the Review of
Funding for Schooling
The Review of Funding for Schooling will report to the Minister with responsibility for school education.
Purpose
The review will provide recommendations to the Minister with responsibility for school education on
the future funding arrangements for schooling in Australia for the period beyond 2013.
The review’s recommendations will be directed towards achieving a funding system for the period
beyond 2013 which is transparent, fair, financially sustainable and effective in promoting excellent
educational outcomes for all Australian students.
In making its recommendations, the review should consider the following issues:
Supporting educational outcomes
1. The role of funding arrangements in supporting improved educational outcomes, including:
a) links between school resourcing and educational outcomes; and
b) funding allocation mechanisms that address current barriers to educational achievement
such as English language proficiency, Indigeneity, location, disability and special needs,
and other disadvantaged groups such as low socioeconomic areas and other concentrations
of disadvantage.
2. The roles of families, parents, communities and other institutions in providing or supporting
educational partnerships with schools.
Allocation of funding
3. The roles of the Australian and state and territory governments in providing funding for schooling.
4. The baseline level and allocation of funding for schools, including:
a) costs of ensuring all students have access to a world-class education;
b) factors influencing growth in costs and whether current indexation arrangements are
appropriate;
c) supply and demand considerations including the likely growth and distribution of demand and
student need, based on current student enrolment trends and projections;
d) cost drivers of school funding, including teaching, capital, technology and other costs of
schooling;
e) place of voluntary and private contributions and other income sources in school funding
arrangements for government and non-government schools; and
f) role of government funding in providing parents with choice among diverse schools.
225

Funding mechanisms
5. The most effective means of distributing funding for schooling, including:
a) the different funding models used in states and territories and relevant overseas examples,
especially in high-performing school systems, and how these may link to outcomes in their
respective education systems;
b) the best funding mechanism(s) for delivering optimal educational outcomes, financial efficiency
and sustainability, including whether a basic entitlement for every student is required and how
this could be defined and determined;
c) ways to increase the simplicity, transparency and effectiveness of school funding arrangements,
including the forms of school- and system-level autonomy within those arrangements that best
support improved educational outcomes; and
d) the transitional assistance that should be offered to schools in making the transition to any
new system.
Accountability and regulation
6. What forms of accountability, transparency and regulation are necessary to promote high standards
of delivery and probity among schools receiving public funding, and the data required to monitor
and assess these standards of delivery and educational outcomes.
226

Appendix B – Review process and consultation
On 15 April 2010, the former Minister for Education, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, announced that a
comprehensive review of funding arrangements for schooling would commence in 2010 and conclude
in 2011. The purpose of the review was to provide recommendations directed towards achieving a
funding system for the period beyond 2013 that would be transparent, fair, financially sustainable and
effective in promoting excellent educational outcomes for all Australian students.
On 30 April 2010, the Australian Government released the Review of Funding for Schooling Discussion
Paper and Draft Terms of Reference for the Review for public comment.
On 9 July 2010, the Australian Government released the final terms of reference for the review,
following stakeholder submissions and feedback on the draft terms of reference. The terms of
reference were updated in November 2010 to reflect a change in ministerial arrangements as well as
the extension of current funding arrangements for non-government schools until 2013. The final terms
of reference for the review are provided at Appendix A.
The review was led by an expert panel Chaired by David Gonski AC, Chancellor of the University of
New South Wales and Chairman of a number of not-for-profit and for-profit organisations, including
Investec Bank Australia, ASX Limited and Coca Cola Amatil Limited.
The other members of the panel were:
Ken Boston AO, the former Chief Executive of the former Qualifications and Curriculum Authority,
England, and the former Director-General of the Department of Education and Training,
New South Wales.
Kathryn Greiner AO, Chair of Australian Hearing and Biotech Capital, Director of the Bell Shakespeare
Company and former Deputy Chancellor at Bond University.
Carmen Lawrence, Director of the Centre for the Study of Social Change, School of Psychology,
University of Western Australia and former Federal Minister and Premier of Western Australia.
Bill Scales AO, Chancellor of Swinburne University of Technology, Chairman of the Port of Melbourne
Corporation, Board Member of the Veolia Australia Advisory Board and Panel Member of the
Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry.
Peter Tannock AM, Vice-Chancellor, University of Notre Dame Australia and former Chairman,
National Catholic Education Commission of Australia.
In addition, Terrey Arcus AM, Director of Port Jackson Partners Limited, provided strategic advice to
the panel.
Secretariat
A secretariat was established with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations, to support the review process. The secretariat comprised:
Louise Hanlon Head of secretariat
Sarah Barron Director
Darren Gaunt Director
Cathie Maguire Director
Anona Taylor Director
Paul White Director
227

Haisam Askari Assistant Director
Emily Caswell Assistant Director
Jenny Christmass Assistant Director
Amanda Franzi Assistant Director
Mark Lang Assistant Director
Liona May Assistant Director
Fiona Ngai Project Officer
Kacey Lam Administrative Officer
Catriona Shaw Administrative Officer
Kylie Allan Executive Assistant
Former secretariat staff
Craig Robertson Group Manager, DEEWR (until June 2011)
Madonna Morton Head of secretariat (until April 2011)
Karen Sandercock Director (until December 2010)
Shona Falconer Assistant Director (until June 2011)
Julian Russell Assistant Director (until January 2011)
Claudia Iskra Project Officer (until April 2011)
Anne Perusco Project Officer (until November 2010)
Consultation process
The panel undertook a comprehensive public consultation process in order to gain a contemporary
understanding of the issues affecting school education in Australia. During the second half of 2010,
members of the panel conducted a listening tour, meeting with 71 key education groups across
Australia. Details of participants are provided at Appendix C.
As a result of this process, the panel published the Review of Funding for Schooling: Emerging Issues
Paper, outlining the views that had been put to them during the listening tour and calling for public
submissions on the issues raised. A total of 1290 submissions were received in response to the paper.
Further information on this submission process is provided at Appendix D.
The panel also conducted a series of school visits from February to May 2011, involving 39 schools and
campuses across each state and territory and schooling sector. Further information about the school
visits program is outlined at Appendix E.
The panel’s early consultation work highlighted that there were a number of significant issues
the review would need to address in developing a new funding system for schooling. Based on
these issues, the panel identified a number of highly complex areas that required further analysis
and investigation.
On 31 August 2011, the panel released the Review of Funding for Schooling: Paper on Commissioned
Research, which accompanied the public release of the four research reports that had been
commissioned by the panel (see below). Comments on the research were invited through a final
public submission process conducted from 31 August 2011 to 30 September 2011. A total of 118
submissions were received in response to the paper. Further information on this submission process is
at Appendix F.
228

In addition to the two formal submission processes, the panel received thousands of submissions and
items of correspondence from interested members of the public, including responses generated as
a result of campaigns relating to the review. The total number of submissions received is provided at
Table 23. All submissions where authors gave permission to publish were published on the review’s
website. A list of public submissions is provided at Appendix G.
44 27
1,290 537
118 87
158 63
Campaign 5,747 1,990
Table 23: Number of submissions received by the review panel
Submissions received Submissions published
Terms of reference
Emerging Issues Paper
Commissioned research
General
Commissioned research
In 2010, a comprehensive program of research was launched to investigate these areas and to support
the panel’s deliberations. The review’s program of research included four commissioned research
projects, analysis of other research undertaken both in Australia and internationally, and other types
of evidence presented to the panel.
The panel commissioned the following research projects:

Assessment of current process for targeting of schools funding to disadvantaged students, by the
Australian Council for Educational Research.

Assessing existing funding models for schooling in Australia, by Deloitte Access Economics.

Feasibility of a national schooling recurrent resource standard, by The Allen Consulting Group.

Schooling challenges and opportunities, by a consortium led by The Nous Group which includes
the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at The University of Melbourne and the National
Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University.
229

230

Appendix C – Organisations consulted during the 2010
listening tour
Stakeholder Date of meeting
ACT Council of Parents and Citizens Associations 11 August 2010
Adventist Schools Australia 8 July 2010
Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia 11 August 2010
Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales 9 July 2010
Association of Independent Schools of South Australia 29 July 2010
Association of Independent Schools of the Australian Capital Territory 11 August 2010
Association of Independent Schools of the Northern Territory 21 July 2010
Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia 19 July 2010
Australian Anglican Schools Network 19 July 2010
Australian Association of Christian Schools 9 July 2010
Australian Association of Special Education 8 July 2010
Australian College of Educators 23 November 2010
Australian Council of Jewish Schools 8 July 2010
Australian Council of State School Organisations 14 July 2010
Australian Education Union 8 July 2010
Australian Education Union, Australian Capital Territory Branch 11 August 2010
Australian Education Union, Northern Territory Branch 21 July 2010
Australian Education Union, South Australian Branch 29 July 2010
Australian Education Union, Tasmanian Branch 6 July 2010
Australian Education Union, Victorian Branch 8 July 2010
Australian Parents Council 6 July 2010
Australian Primary Principals Association 28 July 2010
Australian Secondary Principals Association 8 July 2010
Australian Special Education Principals’ Association 19 July 2010
Catholic Education Commission, Australian Capital Territory 11 August 2010
Catholic Education Commission, New South Wales 9 July 2010
Catholic Education Commission of Victoria 8 July 2010
Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia 19 July 2010
Catholic Education Office, Northern Territory 21 July 2010
Catholic Education South Australia 29 July 2010
Catholic Secondary Principals Australia 14 July 2010
Children with Disability Australia 15 December 2010
Christian Education Ministries 16 July 2010
Christian Schools Australia 9 July 2010
Department of Education, Tasmania 6 July 2010
Department of Education, Western Australia 19 July 2010
Department of Education and Children’s Services, South Australia 28 July 2010
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Victoria 8 July 2010
231

9Independent Schools Queensland
Stakeholder Date of meeting
Department of Education and Training, Australian Capital Territory 14 July 2010
Department of Education and Communities, New South Wales 27 August 2010
Department of Education and Training, Northern Territory 21 July 2010
Department of Education and Training, Queensland 16 July 2010
Department of Education Services, Western Australia 19 July 2010
Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Associations of New South Wales 9 July 2010
Independent Education Union of Australia 14 July 2010
Independent Schools Council of Australia 14 July 2010
16 July 2010
Independent Schools Tasmania 6 July 2010
Independent Schools Victoria 8 July 2010
Lutheran Education Australia 28 July 2010
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Principals Association 9 August 2010
National Catholic Education Commission 14 July 2010
National Catholic Education Commission Parent Committee 9 July 2010
National Independent Special Schools Association 9 August 2010
National People with Disabilities and Carer Council 15 December 2010
New South Wales Teachers Federation 9 July 2010
Northern Territory Council of Government School Organisations 21 July 2010
Northern Territory Indigenous Education Council 21 July 2010
Parents Victoria 8 July 2010
Principals Australia 29 July 2010
Queensland Catholic Education Commission 16 July 2010
Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens’ Associations 9 August 2010
Queensland Teachers’ Union 16 July 2010
South Australian Association of School Parents’ Clubs 29 July 2010
State School Teachers’ Union of Western Australia 19 July 2010
Stronger Smarter Institute, Queensland University of Technology 16 July 2010
Tasmanian Catholic Education Commission 6 July 2010
Tasmanian State School Parents and Friends 6 July 2010
Torres Strait Islanders Regional Education Council 16 July 2010
Victorian Council of School Organisations 8 July 2010
Western Australian Council of State School Organisations 19 July 2010
9 Department of Education and Training at time of consultation.
232

Appendix D – Emerging Issues Paper submissions
On 16 December 2010, the panel released the Review of Funding for Schooling: Emerging Issues Paper,
accompanied by a submission process which closed on 31 March 2011. The purpose of this process
was to seek further input from the community on seven key themes outlined in the paper:
• equity of educational outcomes
• recurrent funding
• capital funding
• targeted and needs-based funding
• support for students with special needs and students with disability
• governance and leadership
• community and family engagement.
The Emerging Issues Paper elicited 1290 submissions from a broad range of individuals and
organisations, including expert researchers, associations and peak bodies from education, business
and industry groups, the community sector, schools, P&C associations, and parents and community
members. Across the seven key themes, submissions confirmed there were areas of consensus, as
well as varying views and opinions on some issues. A high-level summary of the views presented to
the panel on each of the seven key themes is provided below.
Overall, submissions suggested general support for change in current funding arrangements on the
basis of better supporting equity in educational outcomes, the need for consistent funding for all
students and improved targeted funding for disadvantaged students, particularly support for students
with special needs and students with disability.
Equity of educational outcomes
There was broad support for the panel’s approach to its considerations of equity for the review. Some
submissions suggested that it needed to be refocused on equity of educational opportunity and linked
to factors such as enhancing social mobility and participation.
Other submissions argued that the focus on equity should be about guaranteeing a high-quality
education to all students. To this end, submissions noted that the role of schooling is to provide
academic and social foundations for success in life. An alternative view was that a fair and equitable
approach to funding, particularly for supporting disadvantaged students, means providing a similar
level of government support for all students, irrespective of their background or financial situation.
Recurrent funding
Current funding arrangements were the most frequently addressed topic in submissions. There was
strong support for an increase in overall funding for the school education sector, particularly the levels
of recurrent funding for educationally disadvantaged students.
Some submissions were critical of the SES funding arrangements and the role of AGSRC in funding
for schools as they were seen to deliver a funding advantage in some instances and were ineffective in
redressing educational inequities.
Some organisations agreed with the underlying rationale behind the SES funding model, while
others suggested that it was not an adequate measure of need and that other factors needed to be
considered, such as resource availability. Some submissions advocated that the Funding Maintained
233

arrangements were not consistent with the overall application of the SES funding model. Those
submissions supportive of Funding Maintained arrangements generally also advocated for funding to
be retained in real terms following the outcome of the review.
In terms of AGSRC as an index, there was generally more support for its continued use as a measure
to reflect increases in both the cost and quality of educational resources. While there was universal
acknowledgment that there needs to be some mechanism that reflects changes in expenditure in
schooling, most submissions did not view AGSRC as the best platform. While there was some support
for retaining AGSRC, some submissions also outlined views about its limitations and called for
adjustments to its administration. There was some support for the actual costs in government schools
to be used as the basis for any future indexation arrangement as opposed to the use of an unrelated
general measure of price increases. The purpose of AGSRC as a benchmark of per student amounts
was also discussed in submissions. Several submissions noted issues around the exclusion of some
costs in its calculation and the time lag between cost increases and the associated application. Some
submissions expressed the view that AGSRC is overly complex and urged serious reconsideration of its
continued use as a funding benchmark.
There was a high level of agreement for school funding to be comprised of a base grant with an
additional needs-based component, but there were differing positions as to what factors should be
used to determine such a base. Overall, there was general agreement that students with high needs
would require additional funding to supplement any base funding amount. A range of views were
expressed in submissions about the extent to which there should be a minimum level of public funding
for all non-government schools.
Some submissions supported funding certainty through legislated arrangements; however, varying
positions were expressed about the term of the funding arrangements.
Capital funding
There was general agreement that significant additional capital investment is required to address
underinvestment in the upgrade and maintenance of existing school buildings and to adequately
support world-class learning facilities, particularly for government schools and non-government
schools serving disadvantaged communities. The injection of additional capital funding through the
Building the Education Revolution program into primary schools was acknowledged in submissions
but it was frequently noted that it was only a one-off measure.
Many submissions outlined a range of factors that impact on the ability of schools and education
authorities to maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure and accommodate the expected growth
in student numbers, for example, construction, maintenance and compliance costs. Several
submissions called for a more appropriate indexation arrangement that reflects the total costs
involved in establishing new schools as well as developing and maintaining existing schools.
Some submissions commented that some schools have limited capacity to raise additional funds
to meet their infrastructure needs. The issue of capital funding arrangements to support the
establishment of new schools was widely raised in submissions as an area that requires innovative and
collaborative approaches.
There was a range of suggestions put forward regarding the most appropriate way to fund expenditure
on major works, minor works and maintenance of new and existing schools. While some considered
there was merit in many aspects of the current arrangements, there was also some support for
better long-term planning around the establishment of both new school facilities and maintenance
of current school facilities. Some submissions also considered there was merit in better long-term
management and use of school assets, for example, access to school facilities outside of school hours
234

for community use, and planning to include consideration of how school assets can be converted to
alternative uses over time to provide long-term value to the community.
Targeted and needs-based funding
There was general agreement that any new funding model should include a targeted needs-based
funding component in addition to a base recurrent funding component. The majority of submissions
agreed with the focus on the five major sources of disadvantage outlined in the Emerging Issues
Paper, namely lack of English language proficiency, Indigeneity, remoteness, disability and
socioeconomic background.
Some submissions provided evidence that some students experienced multiple or compound
disadvantage and indicated strong support for any new funding arrangements to address this
particular impact as well as the impact of concentrations of disadvantaged students in particular
school communities. Some submissions noted that some government schools are becoming
increasingly characterised by high numbers of disadvantaged students. Some submissions also noted
that not all disadvantaged students require similar levels of additional need or support.
Some submissions called for certainty in relation to needs-based funding, noting that short-term
arrangements do not provide schools with the certainty or sustainability to address entrenched
disadvantage.
Various options were put forward to meet the higher costs of educating students presenting with
particular disadvantages; however, there were mixed views on the criteria that could be used to assess
student need, and the accompanying funding arrangements that would best support educationally
disadvantaged students.
Some submissions recognised the benefits of the Australian Government adopting an outcomes-based
approach to funding disadvantage, similar to National Partnership arrangements in terms of providing
the states and territories flexibility in the distribution of funds within each jurisdiction. However, the
National Partnership model was not supported by all parties, with some giving their preference for a
direct funding relationship with the Australian Government, or a longer term funding arrangement that
would provide a higher degree of certainty and continuity.
Support for students with special needs and students with disability
Submissions were generally in agreement about the need for increased funding to support students
with disability and students with special learning needs, and highlighted the legal obligations of
schools to accommodate students with disability, inclusivity practices, the increasing numbers of
students in these categories, and the high costs and complexity involved in providing equipment,
training, teaching and other appropriate specialist staff.
There was strong support for the work underway to develop a nationally consistent definition for
students with disability and for funding arrangements that provide similar levels of support for these
students and families regardless of sector.
Some submissions supported funding for students with special needs and students with disability
based on individual student need, with the funds provided flexibly to schools or school authorities.
Portable funding models, such as individual voucher arrangements, were generally not supported.
Governance and leadership
There was support for a greater degree of school-level autonomy, conditional on factors such as:
funding is enhanced and a clear framework for autonomy is established; a national curriculum and
235

standards are in place for teaching; leadership development opportunities and relevant support are
provided; and school and system accountability are improved. Various submissions were not supportive
of a decentralised, more autonomous approach as it increased pressure on principals and staff.
Community and family engagement
Many submissions emphasised the importance of education as a joint venture between schools,
parents, carers and families, and the broader community. These submissions were generally
supportive of funding arrangements that would realise greater community and family engagement in
schools. Submissions noted the emphasis to date on in-school factors influencing student outcomes,
and suggested that future funding arrangements would need to support integrated and sustained
approaches to parental engagement to improve outcomes for disadvantaged students. Submissions
also supported better use of school facilities by sharing facilities outside of school hours as a means of
engendering broader community engagement, particularly where facilities had been established with
some level of public funding.
Some submissions commented on the need to develop philanthropic giving in the Australian schooling
context, particularly for government schools, and called for the removal of impediments to securing
additional funding from private sources. These submissions noted the need for arrangements
to support philanthropic donations by private individuals, charitable foundations or businesses.
Other submissions expressed the view that education funding is the responsibility of government
and opposed any greater reliance on business or commercial contributions, noting that not all
communities have the same capacity to support their local schools.
Other supplementary comments
Many submissions canvassed a range of other issues relevant to the organisation and delivery of
schooling in Australia such as pastoral care, the integration of other services relating to the health and
wellbeing of students, public accountability, greater investment in early childhood education and early
intervention, support for parental choice, and the respective roles of the Australian Government and
state or territory governments.
Many submissions also outlined alternative approaches to funding schools, including the
establishment of an independent national agency to oversee school funding arrangements.
236

Appendix E – Panel school visits program
From February to May 2011, panel members visited a number of schools to discuss funding issues
experienced by principals, teachers and school communities in catering for their students, and to
observe the effect of the current funding environment on a range of schools. Panel members selected
schools for the visits that represented a range of school settings. Schools visited included those in
government and non-government sectors, regional and remote areas, and those with high enrolments
of Indigenous students, students with a LBOTE, and students with special needs and students
with disability.
A total of 39 schools and campuses were visited by panel members, including 14 government schools,
nine Catholic systemic schools and 16 independent schools across each state and territory of Australia
(see Tables 24 to 31).
The format of the visits was not prescribed and principals were given scope to arrange the visits
as they chose. The visits generally included a presentation by principals or teachers on their
school and the funding issues they faced, followed by a discussion of issues relevant to the school’s
circumstances. Panel members were also often invited to tour school facilities and meet staff and
students. The discussions held in these sessions helped to inform the views of the panel.
Name of school
Independent
Catholic
Table 24: Schools visited by panel members in New South Wales
Sector
Government Plumpton Public School, Plumpton
Villawood North Public School, Fairfield East
Al Amanah College, Bankstown
Giant Steps, Gladesville
Mater Dei Special School, Camden
Moriah College, Bondi Junction
Penrith Christian School, Orchard Hills
Santa Sabina College, Strathfield
SCEGGS, Darlinghurst
St Andrew’s Cathedral School, Sydney
St Lucy’s School, Wahroonga
Holy Spirit College, Lakemba
Sacred Heart School, Villawood
237

Name of school
Kalianna Special School, Bendigo
Independent
Catholic
Table 25: Schools visited by panel members in Victoria
Sector
Government Bendigo South East Secondary College, Bendigo
Glengala/Sunshine West Primary School, Sunshine
Geelong Grammar School, Geelong
Geelong Grammar School, Timbertop Campus
Girton Grammar School, Bendigo
Ilim College of Australia, Broadmeadows
Mansfield Autistic Centre, Mansfield
Caroline Chisholm Catholic College, Braybrook
Catholic College, Bendigo
Name of school
Table 26: Schools visited by panel members in Queensland
Sector
Government Innisfail State School, Innisfail
Catholic Mount St Bernard College, Herberton
Name of school
Table 27: Schools visited by panel members in South Australia
Sector
Government Adelaide High School, Adelaide
Catholic Mount Carmel College, Rosewater
Name of school
Independent
Table 28: Schools visited by panel members in Western Australia
Sector
Government Ashdale Primary School, Darch
Roseworth Primary School, Girrawheen
Shenton College, Shenton Park
Living Waters Lutheran College, Warnbro
Catholic Holy Cross College, Ellenbrook
Majella Catholic Primary School, Balga
238

Name of school
Table 29: Schools visited by panel members in Tasmania
Sector
Government Launceston College, Launceston
Catholic St James Catholic College, Cygnet
Name of school
Table 30: Schools visited by panel members in the Northern Territory
Sector
Government Bradshaw Primary School, Alice Springs
Independent Yipirinya School, Alice Springs
Name of school
Table 31: Schools visited by panel members in the Australian Capital Territory
Sector
Government Belconnen High School Autism/Asperger’s Syndrome Program, Hawker
Narrabundah College, Narrabundah
239

240

Appendix F – Paper on Commissioned Research
submissions
On 31 August 2011, the panel released the Review of Funding for Schooling: Paper on Commissioned
Research, which accompanied the four research reports that had been commissioned by the
panel, and invited further public comment on the research. This submission process closed on
30 September 2011.
A total of 118 submissions were received in response to the paper from government and
non-government education authorities, peak and supporting bodies, key Australian educationalists,
schools, parents, teachers as well as members of the broader community.
In the submissions provided, there was a general view that the four reports had collectively
consolidated important information about Australian school education and highlighted the complexity
of the issues before the panel. Many submissions indicated that the findings made a strong case for
fundamental change in the way schooling is funded by all levels of government to lift performance of
all Australian schools, as well as meet the demands of a rapidly changing social and technological
environment. A small number of submissions commented that only minimal change to current funding
arrangements was required.
Some submissions expressed concerns about the research findings, including the underpinning
methodologies and assumptions, the standard of the analysis and a lack of empirical support. It
was suggested by some that the research reports may have reflected a lack of understanding of
some school practices. A lack of a substantial focus in relation to some issues was also raised in
some submissions.
Feasibility of a schooling resource standard
Responses to the potential use of a schooling resource standard were mixed but overall there was
general support for further consideration of its potential. Some submissions explicitly supported the
notion of a base funding amount for all students, with additional support attached to students with
greater educational needs. Other submissions were qualified and indicated in their comments that
further detailed consideration of the methodology and calculations of the schooling resource standard
is required as well as information on the impact at the school and system level.
Concern was expressed about the extent to which the use of a standard would deliver funding equitably
and efficiently, as well as how it would recognise circumstances in each state and territory and be
adaptable to changing circumstances over time.
Submissions expressed considerable support for the need for improved data quality and national or
comparable definitions to support a schooling resource standard, noting limitations with NAPLAN
data and the current quality of data on student background. Submissions suggested the need for
work to generate a transparent and stable methodology for determining socioeconomic status. Of
particular concern was the use of the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage as a proxy
for socioeconomic status. There was also discussion about the use of financial data items and what
should be included in the methodology.
Submissions discussed the need for the reference schools to be representative of the broader school
population. In terms of the level of the student outcome benchmark, some suggested that the level
was not aspirational enough. Some also suggested that the use of professional judgment would
undermine the rigour of the model.
241

There was overall support for the characteristics that had been identified through the research
findings as key areas of need within the Australian student population. Many submissions also
canvassed the need for the model to address concentrations of disadvantage. The appropriateness
of loadings being individual or school-based, the potential for unintended consequences, and an
assumption that primary schools should be funded at a lower rate than secondary schools were all
raised as issues in some submissions.
Most submissions took the view that any approach to future school indexation arrangements should
be based on real costs of schooling, not on generic measures. It was also argued that indexation must
include both annual price and quality expenditure increases in government schools.
Concern was expressed that the research findings did not adequately address the issues of the share
of costs between the Australian Government and the states and territories and the transition to any
new future funding arrangements. Some questioned whether the new funding arrangements could be
implemented in two years as suggested, given the time needed to resolve data issues and validate a
new approach.
Greater support for disadvantaged students
A major theme of submissions was that any funding model needs to effectively recognise demographic
challenges and the different levels of need within the Australian student population. Most submissions
acknowledged that addressing disadvantage is complex.
Some submissions noted their own analysis of data in relation to particular types of disadvantage
and the impact on schools of the growing evidence base around the educational needs of schools
with concentrations of disadvantage. Some submissions noted that some government schools are
becoming increasingly characterised by high numbers of disadvantaged students.
There were mixed views regarding the relationship between school resourcing and improving
educational outcomes. Multiple and overlapping sources of funding, particularly targeted funding
approaches, were viewed as undermining the principles of simplicity, transparency and efficiency.
Views were also mixed on whether broad-based funding such as National Partnerships or targeted
programs were more appropriate to address disadvantage.
Many submissions commented that they were unable to discern a clear model for funding students
with disabilities in the research. There was a general acknowledgment of the difficulties due to a lack
of data, consistent national definitions and assessment tools. The majority of submissions indicated
that resolution of these matters should not hold up the development of a more effective school
funding model.
Many submissions supported the need for additional investment for disadvantaged students and that
funding should be the same regardless of school or sector. It was also noted that levels of funding
were not the complete solution and that consideration must also be given to how the resources are
directed to address disadvantage.
An effective funding model
The majority of submissions were supportive of the features outlined in the research findings that were
considered integral to funding outcomes, namely that funding models should be equitable, effective,
adequate, efficient and incentivised.
Some submissions emphasised the principles of transparency and effectiveness, arguing that an
appropriate understanding of schools’ funding is part of increasing community confidence that the
242

relative level of funding for schools is appropriate and based on evidence. Funding models promoting
the principles of choice for parents and certainty in funding were also considered important. The
principle of fairness, particularly in relation to the funding support for students with special needs and
students with disability, was also emphasised.
The majority of submissions advocated that the current roles of the Australian Government and state
and territory governments in the management of schools and the provision of funding should be
maintained. The principle of subsidiarity in relation to the allocation of funding was also supported, as
were ongoing system-level approaches. Many submissions agreed that any funding model needs to
be clearly linked to well-defined public policy objectives with an appropriate delineation of roles and
responsibilities.
Transitional fairness was also put forward as a key principle for school funding reform with no student,
school, community or sector disadvantaged by any changes to funding arrangements.
Future priorities and directions
The majority of submissions commented on the research findings concerning possible reforms to drive
increased performance and equity across the schooling system.
Most submissions concurred with the six levers put forward to improve the Australian schooling
system, particularly improving the quality of teachers and teaching, and ensuring that high-quality
teachers are available to schools with greatest need.
Submissions also noted the research about the impact of school resourcing on student outcomes,
noting that resourcing is a critical enabler which can be used to support important changes within
schools. Other submissions highlighted that the key to improving Australia’s education system is
not doing a lot of new things, but rather applying what works in a comprehensive, integrated and
sustainable manner.
Some submissions noted the findings that improvements in retention and participation can
considerably improve performance. More inclusive approaches that connect schools and services to
support the needs of the most disadvantaged school communities were supported. The importance
of parental and community engagement and strong school leadership to drive a positive and effective
school culture was also acknowledged.
While early childhood is already undergoing significant reform, some submissions argued that there is
a need to maintain this momentum and that consideration is needed on the level of investment in the
early years of schooling.
Opinion differed in relation to school autonomy, with some submissions supporting enhanced school
autonomy to lift educational outcomes, while others were more cautious in their support.
While the research reports noted widespread concern about the level and approach for investment
in infrastructure, many submissions indicated that this is an area which needs innovative and
collaborative funding approaches.
243

244

Appendix G – Public submissions
Public submissions received by the review are listed below under the submission category in
alphabetical order. Submissions with multiple authors are listed under the name of the first author. All
submissions where authors gave permission to do so were published in their submission category in
alphabetical order on the review’s website.
Appendix B includes a table with the total number of submissions received and the numbers publicly
available. This included responses to external campaigns that were submitted to the review. Of the
5747 campaign submissions forwarded, 1990 were published on the review website. These have not
been included in this appendix.
Independent Schools Queensland
Draft terms of reference
ACT Council of Parents and Citizens Associations
Adventist Schools Australia
Association of Independent Schools of South Australia
Australian Association of Christian Schools and Christian Education National
Australian College of Educators
Australian Council for the Defence of Government Schools
Australian Education Union
Australian Parents Council
Australian Primary Principals Association
Australian Secondary Principals Association
Australian Special Education Principals’ Association
Catholic Secondary Principals Australia
Christian Schools Australia
Council of Catholic School Parents New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory
Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Associations of New South Wales
Foundation for Young Australians
Good Shepherd Youth and Family Service
Independent Education Union of Australia
Independent Schools Council of Australia
Independent Schools Victoria
Lutheran Education Australia
National Catholic Education Commission
National Independent Special Schools Association
O’Brien, Terry
O’Carroll, Philip
Singleton Primary School, Western Australia
245

Curtis, Chris
Gazzola, Mary
Gould, Marie
Hart, Bonnie
Shiels, Catherine
Smith, Catherine
Smith, Melanie
Vij, Linda
Wilson, Michael
Albany Primary School, Western Australia
Amnesty International
Australian Indigenous Education Foundation
Australian Parents Council
Bathurst, Beverley
Baudinette, Fiona
Becker, Dan
Belmay Primary School, Western Australia
Blue Gum Community School, Australian Capital
Territory
Bridgetown High School, Western Australia
Cassidy, Karen
Clark, Wendy
Cummins Area School, South Australia
Davidson, Merrilyn
Everitt, Val
Farfalla, Enza
Gartland, Georgina
Gilmore, Anne
Glenunga International High School, South Australia
Goodman-Peck, Bindi
Gordon, James William
Greenwell, Jill
Greenwell, John Henry
Huard, Paul
Hurley, Sharron
Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association of Australia
Johnsen, Matthew
Kingston Primary School Association, Tasmania
Knight, Vanessa
Koorey, Amanda
Lameroo Regional Community School, South Australia
Mackenzie, Fiona
Margaret River School Community Council, Western
Australia
McKeown, Gail
Minack, Richard
National Australia Bank Education and Community
Business
Nigro, Lynette
New South Wales Secondary Principals’ Council
Oetjen, Tracey
Orren, Tom
Port Broughton Area School Governing Council, South
Australia
Preston, Barbara
Proctor, Helen
Quakers Hill High School Parents and Citizens’
Association, New South Wales
Rose, Paul A
Schreier, Marisa
Scott, Kellie
Sharman, Michelle
Spraakman, Janice
Stitt, Alexander
Teese, Richard
Waitara Public School Parents’ and Citizens’ Association
Waters, Marty
Yugumbir State School, Queensland
General submissions
246

Submissions on the Emerging Issues Paper
Agiasotis, Nisha
All Saints Primary School, Queensland
Amos, Annabel
Aspinall, Ben
Queensland
Schools
Aberfeldie Primary School, Victoria
Aboriginal Independent Community Schools of Western
Australia
Accessible Arts
ACT Principals Association
Adventist Schools Australia
Aitken College, Victoria
Alessia, Kate
Alexander, Karla
Alm, Margit
Anglican Schools Commission
Armstead, Susan
Asquith Public School Parents and Citizens’ Association
Associated Christian Schools
Association of Catholic Special Schools Services
Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia
Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales
Association of Independent Schools of South Australia
Association of Independent Schools of the Australian
Capital Territory
Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia
Association of Special Education Administrators in
Athelstone Schools, South Australia
Atwell, Kathy
Auckland, Clare
Australasian Association for Progressive and Alternative
Education
Australian Anglican School Network
Australian Association of Christian Schools
Australian Association of Government School
Administrators
Australian Association of Special Education
Australian Capital Territory Government
Australian College of Educators
Australian Council for the Defence of Government
Australian Council of Jewish Schools
Australian Council of State School Organisations
Australian Dyslexia Trust
Australian Education Union, Tasmanian Branch
247

Submissions on the Emerging Issues Paper
Bonnor, Chris
Buzza, Jodie
Blomfield, Kelli
Boardman, Robyn
Body, Graham
Bondi Beach Public School, New South Wales
Bonnici, Penny
Box Hill High School, Victoria
Boyne, Ken
Bracknell Primary School, Tasmania
Brigidine College, Queensland
Brisbane Girls Grammar School, Queensland
Broadbent, Beverley
Brooks, Laura
Brotherhood of St Laurence
Broughton, Jim
Brown, Mary
Brown, Rowanne
Browne, Kelly
Buckingham, Jennifer
Buckley Park College School, Victoria
Burnett Youth Learning Centre, Queensland
Burrows, Chris
Business Council of Australia
Business–School Connections Roundtable
Byron Bay High School Parents and Citizens Association
Cameron, Tracey
Camille, Kim
Campbell, Malcolm
Canberra College, Australian Capital Territory
Cannon, Jessica
Canny, Margaret
Canterbury Girls High School Parents and Citizens’
Association
Carleton, Jenny
Carlingford Public School Parents and Citizens’
Association
Carrington, Jane
Carter, Brook
Cathedral College Queensland
Catholic Education Office, Sydney
Catholic Education Services of the Diocese of Cairns with
Senator the Hon Jan McLucas
Central Coast Parents and Citizens’ Federation
Central Schools of New South Wales Teachers
Federation
248

Submissions on the Emerging Issues Paper
Curtis, Chris
Dalziel, Mary
Davidson, John
Doherty, Fiona
Drummond, Mark
Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland
Catholic Schools Queensland
Cupples, Brooke
Curtin Primary School Parents and Citizens’ Association
de Graaf, Kendal
de Rosnay, Marc
Deafness Forum of Australia
Dell, Neralea
Di Giusto, Lorraine
Diabetes Australia
Dickson College, Australian Capital Territory
Diprose, Tracy
Dodds, Geoffrey
Donnan, Sarah
Douthwaite, Justine
Dow, Briony
Dow, Dianne
Downlands College, Queensland
Doyle, Kate
Dransfield, Genene
Duane, Paul
Duncan, Anna
Durant, Kylie
East Manjimup Primary School, Western Australia
Eckersley, Narelle
Educational Transformations
Edwards, Karen
Eide, Leyla
Eltham College of Education and Melbourne City School
Emery, Carolyn
Evans, Kylee
Eveans, Chris
Everingham, Douglas
Fairhills High School Council, Victoria
Federal Coalition – the Hon Christopher Pyne MP
Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Associations of New
South Wales
Federation of Parents and Friends Associations in
Fennell, Brenda
Fraser Coast Anglican College, Queensland
249

Submissions on the Emerging Issues Paper
Hooper, Jenny
Hughes, Kay
Hunt, Debbie
Independent Schools Queensland
Irwin, Elizabeth
James, Dianne
Keating, Jack
Hargreaves, Chesleigh
Harms, Anton
Hawkes, Tim
Hedger, Kylie
Henry Parks Foundation
Hewatt, Susi
High School for Coburg
Hill, Andrew
Hogben, Loraine
Holy Family School, Northern Territory
Honeysett, Debra
Hornsby Girls High School, New South Wales
Horvat, Rebecca
Independent Education Union of Australia
Independent Education Union of South Australia
Independent Schools Council of Australia
Independent Schools Tasmania
Independent Schools Victoria
Ireland, Robert
James, Wesley Barton
Jamisontown Public School Parents and Citizens’
Association
Jarrett, Jenny
Jarvis, Maureen
Jindabyne Central School Council, New South Wales
Johnston, Jennifer
Jones, Megan Emily (multiple submissions)
Jontof-Hutter, Keren
Julia Farr Association
Kangaroo Island Community Education, South Australia
Karabar High School Council, New South Wales
Kaye MLC, Dr John
Keely, Michael
Kegworth Public School Parents and Citizens’
Association
Kelly, Jane
Kendall Research and Evaluation
Association
Kingsford Smith School, Australian Capital Territory
250

Submissions on the Emerging Issues Paper
McLauchlan, Keith
McMeekin, Desmond
Meneghetti, Lisa
Morris, Jenny
Mullane, Brigid
Mullins, Amber
McKinney, Emma
McLaren, John
Melbourne Girls College, Victoria
Mercer, Lisa
Mercy Regional College, Victoria
Merri Creek Primary School Council, Victoria
Methodist Ladies’ College, Victoria
Micah Products
Michael, Michelle
Millen Primary School Parents and Citizens’ Association
Miller, Alison
Miller, Barry
Miller, Sandra
Millner Primary School Council, Northern Territory
Minchinton, Katie
Mission Australia
Montessori Australia Foundation Limited
Moore, Christine
Moore, Tony
Morris, Wendy
Morrow, Robert
Mount Barker High School, South Australia
Mount Evelyn Christian School, Victoria
Mount Lawley Senior High School, Western Australia
Mount Rogers Primary School Parents and Citizens’
Association
Mountjoy, Deb
Mowbray Public School, New South Wales
Multicultural Development Association
Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network Australia
Mulvay, Susan
Mulvay, Susan-Jane
Mumbulla School Parents and Friends Association
Munro, Kate
Murphy, Kate
Music Council of Australia
Narara Valley High School Parents and Citizens’
Association
National Catholic Education Commission
National Catholic Education Commission Parent
Committee
251

Submissions on the Emerging Issues Paper
Roberts, Naomi
Robinson, Jill
Robinson, Suzanne
Robson, Alison
Rollison, Kay
Sheriff, Brian
Smith, Jayne
Spain, Elizabeth
Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens’
Associations
Queensland Education Alliance
Queensland Government
Queensland Teachers’ Union
Ringwood Secondary College, Victoria
Riverside Girls High School, New South Wales
Ross, Kenneth
Sacred Heart Parish School, Queensland
Sacred Heart Primary School, Sandgate, Queensland
Sacred Heart Primary School, Yeppoon, Queensland
Santa Sabina College, New South Wales
Save Our Schools
Schmidli, Rowena
Schools Business Managers’ Association of Queensland
Scott, Kellie
Scott, Kerrie
Seton College, Queensland
Sherriff, Michele
Shine South Australia
Shorter, Beth
Shuttleworth, Peter
Sidney Myer Chair of Rural Education and Communities
Sinclair, Maureen
Skehan, Sandra
Smedley, Virginia
Smeed, Christina
Smith, Christine
Smith, Steve
Solomon, Claudia
Sophia Mundi Rudolf Steiner School, Victoria
South Australian Association of School Parents Clubs
Southern Cross Catholic School, Queensland
Southern Cross Early Childhood School, Australian
Capital Territory
Southport State School, Queensland
St Brigid’s Primary School, Queensland
St Edward the Confessor School, Queensland
252

Submissions on the Emerging Issues Paper
Villa Maria Wilkins, Anne Marie
Williams, Ann
Wilson, Joel
Zedda-Sampson, Louise
Trinity Grammar School, Victoria
Turramurra High School Parents and Citizens’
Association
Unity College Queensland, Queensland
van der Zwaag, Peter
Victorian Australian Labor Party Education Policy
Committee
Victorian Council of School Organisations
Victorian Government
Victorian Principals Association
Vincent, Jennifer
Vision Australia
Western Australia Education Support Principals’ and
Administrators Association
Wade High School Parents and Citizens’ Association
Walker, Frances
Walker, Jennifer
Wallace, Sandra
Waller, Matthew
Wangaratta Primary School Council, Victoria
Wanliss, Danielle
Warren, Allan
Warwick Central State School, Queensland
Wauchope Public School, New South Wales
Waverley Public School Parents and Citizens’ Association
West Ryde Public School, New South Wales
Western Australia Primary Principals’ Association
Western Australian Government
White, Karen
Whitecross, Elizabeth
Whitsunday Anglican School, Queensland
Wikner, Cate
Wilkins, Lynne
Willeton Senior High School Board
Willmott Park Primary School, Victoria
Willoughby Girls High School, New South Wales
Windle, Joel
Wilson, Peter
Wollumbin High School Parents and Citizens’ Association
Wood, Simone
Youth and Community Learning Centre, Queensland
Zang, Deborah
Wassell, Nicola Zohn, Maureen
Submissions on Paper on Commissioned Research
Queensland
Schools
Bonnor, Chris
Access Innovation Media
Associated Christian Schools
Association of Heads of Independent Schools Australia
Association of Heads of Independent Schools New South
Wales/Australian Capital Territory Branch
Association of Independent Schools of South Australia
Association of Special Education Administrators
Austin, Tim
Australian Association of Christian Schools
Australian Council for the Defence of Government
Australian Council of Jewish Schools
Australian Council of State School Organisations
Australian Education Union
Australian Federation of Graduate Women
Australian Government Primary Principals Association
Australian Labor Party Education and Youth Affairs
Policy Committee, Victorian Branch
Australian Parents Council
Australian Primary Principals Association
Australian Secondary Principals Association
Australian Special Education Principals’ Association
Australian Youth Affairs Coalition
Autism Spectrum Australia
Barrenjoey High School Parents and Citizens’
Association
Blue Gum Community School, Australian Capital
Territory
Bunbury Regional Governance Group
CHI.L.D Association, the Glenleighden School
Children with Disability Australia
Christian Schools Australia
253

Submissions on Paper on Commissioned Research
Curtis, Chris
Hines, Janet
Independent Schools Queensland
McCarry, G J
Mullane, Brigid
Connors, Lyndsay and McMorrow, Jim
Council of Catholic School Parents New South Wales/
Australian Capital Territory
Diocese of Geraldton Regional Governance Group
Eastern and South Eastern Regional Governance Groups
Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Associations of New
South Wales
Fowles, Bill
GoodStart Childcare
Gooseberry Hill Primary School, Western Australia
Greenwell, Tom
Hansen, Bruce
Independent Education Union of Australia
Independent Schools Council of Australia
Independent Schools Victoria
Kiama High School, New South Wales
Lee, Nathan (multiple submissions)
Lutheran Education Australia
McGhie, Beverley
Montessori Australia Foundation
Morgan, Ian
Mount Evelyn Christian School, Victoria
National Catholic Education Commission
National Disability Services
National People with Disabilities and Carer Council
New South Wales Government
New South Wales Primary Principals’ Association
New South Wales Secondary Principals’ Council
New South Wales Teachers Federation
North Eastern and North Coastal Regional Governance
Groups
Northern Territory Department of Education and Training
Price, Brendan
Psaltis, Kosmas
Public Education Foundation
Queensland Association of State School Principals
Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens’
Associations
Queensland Government
Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council
Santa Sabina College, New South Wales
Save Our Schools
South Australian Department of Education and
Children’s Services
South Western and South Central and Southern Regional
Governance Groups
St Andrew’s Cathedral School, New South Wales
St Lucy’s School, New South Wales
St Stephen’s School, Western Australia
Stanton, Anne
Steiner Education Australia
Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation
Taminmin College Council
The Smith Family
Thyer, James
Victorian Government
Western and Central Regional Governance Groups
New South Wales Parents’ Council Western Australian Government
254

Appendix H – Schooling resource standard data
and methodology
This appendix describes the data and methodology used for developing indicative estimates of the
schooling resource standard per student amounts and loadings.
Data
The My School database has been the primary source of data used to estimate the schooling resource
standard. The outcomes data used in the estimation process are the proportion of students assessed
at different band levels for reading and numeracy based on the NAPLAN assessment scale for 2008
to 2010.
The financial data used in the estimation process are the net recurrent income per student (NRIPS)
reported for all schools for 2009. Net recurrent income relates to the amount of income received by
a school from the Australian Government, state and territory governments, fees, charges, parent
contributions and other private sources that is available for expenditure relating to the ongoing
operating costs of schools, such as teaching and non-teaching staff salaries.
Although there are currently some caveats on this data reflecting differences in treatment and
collection across jurisdictions and sectors, it is sufficiently robust for the purposes of initial work.
An independent accounting firm (Deloitte), which oversaw the development of the methodology for
collecting and reporting this data, concluded that, except for certain comparability limitations, it
provides a reasonable basis for the collection of materially comparable financial data by school on a
national basis (ACARA 2010a).
While a number of aspects of the data collection can and should be improved over time, it is important
to note that the amounts to apply in 2014 will be determined on data for later years. This will provide
opportunities to improve the quality of the data before final schooling resource standard per student
amounts and loadings are determined.
Primary and secondary per student amounts
The methodology for developing primary and secondary per student amounts involved four steps:
• Step 1 – Specifying the student outcome benchmark and identifying reference schools.
• Step 2 – Developing a statistical model to quantify the different factors that explain the variation in
NRIPS among reference schools.
• Step 3 – Setting the key characteristics of ‘base schools’, that is, those with no significant
disadvantage that would attract per student amounts only and minimal if any loadings.
• Step 4 – Estimating per student amounts for primary and secondary students on the basis of these
settings using the model developed at Step 2.
Step 1 – Specifying the student outcome benchmark and identifying reference schools
This has been described in Section 4.2.3 of the report.
Step 2 – Developing a statistical model
Reference schools are not a homogenous group. They have different levels of disadvantage, sources
and levels of funding and sizes and locations, all of which can affect a school’s NRIPS. Averaging
reference school net recurrent income would therefore be too crude an approach and a statistical
model is needed to estimate the primary and secondary student amounts that can control for these
other influences.
255

This model quantifies the relationships between NRIPS and the host of other school and student
characteristics that can affect school resourcing using available My School data. It includes a wide
range of variables such as jurisdiction, sector, size, location, Indigeneity, disadvantaged LBOTE,
socio-educational advantage and school type.
The model estimates the influence of these variables on NRIPS using regression analysis. This allows
the independent effect on NRIPS of changes in the value of the different variables to be estimated.
Different combinations of variables have also been analysed in the model as there are known
interactions between them (such as location and Indigeneity and sector and the percentage of income
from private sources). The model also seeks to remove the estimated existing additional costs of
supporting students with disability as these resources, plus additional funding, would be allocated
through loadings on top of the per student amount.
Step 3 – Setting base school characteristics
To obtain estimates of per student amounts holding everything else equal, a number of assumptions
need to be made about the characteristics of the ‘base’ school, that is, one with no significant
disadvantage that would attract per student amounts only and minimal if any loadings. The main
variables that need to be set in this way are:
• School size as measured by student enrolments – on average primary schools are much smaller
than secondary and combined schools and the base school for the primary and secondary amounts
needs to reflect this difference.
• The proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Indigenous, disadvantaged LBOTE or
low socio-educational advantage) – as reference schools are selected on the basis of meeting an
outcomes benchmark for literacy and numeracy, they have a lower-than-average representation
of students from these groups. However, there are still some students with these characteristics
in reference schools. As loadings are added subsequently for these factors, it is important that any
remaining effect of disadvantage on resourcing is removed by setting these proportions to zero.
• The location of the school – as location loadings are to be added subsequently, the base school is
assumed to be in a metropolitan area.
• School type (primary, secondary or combined) – the primary per student amount is estimated based
on primary reference schools and primary students in combined reference schools. The secondary
per student amount is based on secondary reference schools and secondary students in combined
reference schools.
• The percentage of NRIPS sourced from private income – there are significant differences within
the reference school group in the proportion of NRIPS that is publicly and privately funded. In the
government sector higher NRIPS is associated with smaller and more remote schools with higher
levels of disadvantage, which is controlled for in other settings. In the non-government sector,
especially among secondary and combined schools, higher NRIPS is associated with higher private
contributions, which have the potential to skew the estimated per student amounts.
Step 4 – Estimating per student amounts
Once the settings of the base schools are selected, these are then entered into the statistical model
developed at Step 2, which produces estimates of the per student amounts for primary and secondary
students. The model produces results for the 10th, 25th and 50th NRIPS percentiles of reference
schools along with the mean. This gives an indication of the range of efficiency achieved by schools
that are similarly effective.
256

Applying this methodology to the 2009 school financial data, the panel has arrived at indicative
estimates for the primary and secondary per student amounts as set out in
Table 19 in the body of this report.
These indicative estimates provide a starting point for further work which will involve the states and
territories and the non-government sector. The steps required are set out in Section 4.2.7 of the report.
Loadings
The schooling resource standard also includes a series of loadings for student- and school-based
sources of disadvantage. Issues considered by the panel additional to those outlined in Section 4.2.8 of
the report were:
• the rationale for identifying factors for which loadings should be added to the per student amounts
• some aspects of their measurement
• data analysis relevant to the structure of loadings
• indicative ranges for the loadings.
Factors requiring loadings
The panel’s rationale for proposing five loadings was as follows:
• School size and location – analysis of My School data by ACARA suggests that these are powerful
influences on a school’s NRIPS at present due to the economies of scale achievable in larger
schools, the greater proportion of smaller schools in non-metropolitan areas and the additional
costs faced in remote and very remote areas. There is also evidence that the performance
of students in rural schools is significantly below that of students in city schools, even after
accounting for other differences.
• Students with disability – education providers in all sectors are required by law to make reasonable
educational adjustments for students with disability so that they can participate in schooling on
the same basis as other students. While some students with disability do not require adjustments,
others require can require extensive adjustments.
• Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds – PISA and other data show that students from
low socioeconomic status families achieve lower literacy, mathematics and science scores on
average. Low socioeconomic status students in Australia are achieving outcomes well below the
OECD average.
• Students from Indigenous backgrounds – all Australian governments are committed to ambitious
Closing the Gap targets in recognition of the fact that at present Indigenous students on average
perform significantly worse than their non-Indigenous counterparts.
• Students with limited English language proficiency – limited proficiency is a major barrier to
student learning and improvement and there is clear evidence that English proficiency has a
significant impact on average NAPLAN results.
Some of these effects interact with one another, for example, there are overlaps in the effects of
school size and remoteness and lower socioeconomic status. These effects need to be taken into
account in the design of loadings so far as possible.
The panel also considered that it is not possible to provide an indicative estimate of loadings for
students with disability at this time until work underway on nationally consistent data on student
numbers and adjustment levels is completed.
257

Measurement issues
It is critical that school-level data to which loadings are applied are collected in a nationally consistent
way and are robust and verifiable. This applies particularly to student characteristics. For the purposes
of its own considerations, the panel has necessarily used available data for each of these. In particular:
• Low socioeconomic status has been measured using students in the bottom two quarters of
socio-educational advantage as a proxy. This is collected by ACARA for the My School website
based on information about parental education and occupation derived from student enrolments or
the census Collection Districts in which students reside. This is the only available data across all
sectors and schools on this category at this time.
• Limited English language proficiency has been measured using disadvantaged LBOTE as a proxy,
that is, students who are classified as having a LBOTE and whose parental education is Year 9 or
below. While there are a number of ways of measuring English language proficiency, there is no
nationally consistent definition at present.
Full implementation of the loadings in these categories and also students with disability will require
further work to improve the accuracy and rigour of this data.
Structure of loadings
Recognising the additional costs of operating in remote and very remote areas, the panel concluded
that there is a strong case for a range of loadings for all schools in these areas to reflect costs as well
as school size. However, in metropolitan and provincial areas there is not the same case for a loading
for size of school as this could encourage the establishment of unnecessarily small schools. Figure
56 shows that very small schools with fewer than 100 students are mainly located in provincial and
metropolitan areas, but that most remote and very remote schools are in this size range.
Number of schools
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
>1,000900-1,000800-900700-800600-700500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000100
Remote
Figure 56: Schools by location and size, 2009
School size (enrolments)
Metropolitan Provincial V ery remote
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
258

Review of Funding for Schooling259In relation to low socioeconomic status and Indigenous student background, the panel’s analysis
in Chapter 3.2 led it to conclude that loadings should be structured to reflect concentration of
disadvantage so that higher loadings are provided where disadvantage is more concentrated. Figure 57
shows that there is an association between concentration of low socioeconomic status and Indigenous
students in schools and poorer school performance on reading in NAPLAN 2010 at Years 5 and 9. As
discussed in Chapter 3.2, analysis of individual student data for MCEECDYA’s Strategic Policy Working
Group also confirms the effect of concentration on educational performance. In relation to Indigenous
students, setting a higher level of loadings for schools where more than 75 per cent of students are
Indigenous would complement the method used to identify focus schools under the recently endorsed
MCEECDYA Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010–2014 (MCEECDYA 2011a).
Figure 57: NAPLAN school reading scores by concentrated disadvantage, 2010Year 5 reading by SEA concentration0204060801000100200300400500600700800School mean reading scorePercentage of students in lowest socio-educational advantage quarterYear 9 reading by SEA concentrationSchool mean reading scorePercentage of students in lowest socio-educational advantage quarter0100200300400500600700800Year 5 reading by Indigenous concentrationSchool mean reading scorePercentage of students who are Indigenous0204060801000100200300400500600700800Year 9 reading by Indigenous concentrationSchool mean reading scorePercentage of students who are Indigenous0204060801000204060801000100200300400500600700800Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
The structure of loadings for low socioeconomic status and Indigeneity also needs to reflect the
distribution of schools by concentration on these dimensions as this affects the cost of any resource
allocation. Figure 58 shows that the vast majority of schools have less than 10 per cent of students
who are Indigenous. In contrast, relatively equal numbers of schools have low socioeconomic status
students up to 40 to 50 per cent from the lowest socio-educational advantage quarter.

Number of schoolsNumber of schools
Quarter 1 Quarter 2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
90–100060–70
50–6040–5000–10
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
90–100995–90–4
Figure 58: Schools by concentrated disadvantage, 2009
Proportion of students in each SEA quarter Proportion of students that are Indigenous
Per cent Per cent
80–90
70–830–40
20–30
10–280–8970–79
60–650–5940–49
30–320–2910–19
Source: ACARA dataset 2011.
Indicative ranges
As with the per student resource standard amounts, it is not possible to propose any firm estimates
of the loadings at this stage until more detailed work has been undertaken in collaboration with the
states and territories and the non-government sector. For the purposes of its modelling, the panel
worked with a range of possible estimates and structures for loadings as indicated in Table 20, which
can provide a starting point for this further work. A number of considerations were taken into account
in choosing these ranges and levels for the loadings.
In relation to school size and location, it was possible to quantify the existing additional resources
attributable to schools by size and location from the statistical model developed by the Allen
Consulting Group and described in Section 4.2.7 of the report, but using data for all schools rather
than reference schools. However, this does not necessarily represent a desirable resource allocation
given the issues flagged earlier in relation to small schools in metropolitan and provincial areas, and
therefore the issue of loadings outside remote and very remote areas requires further consideration.
For Indigenous students, the panel’s judgment was also informed by the Allen Consulting Group
statistical model for all schools. This suggests that, at present, schools with a high concentration
of Indigenous students attract additional resources of between 80 and 100 per cent holding other
things constant. However, there may well be issues about the interaction between remoteness, low
socioeconomic status and Indigeneity, which could affect this result and would need to be taken into
account in setting loadings.
Using the Allen Consulting Group statistical model was not possible for the remaining loadings and
indicative ranges for them have been based on other considerations.
260

For low socioeconomic status students these included that the starting point for the total value
of the low socioeconomic status loading needs to be larger than the existing investment in this
group from all sources, that is, through state government funding models, the Low Socioeconomic
Status School Communities National Partnership, targeted programs for non-government schools
and non-government system authority allocations. For example, participating schools in the Low
Socioeconomic Status School Communities National Partnership are estimated to receive an
additional $1000 per student on average over the seven years of the agreement. While the panel
welcomed the additional effort represented by this National Partnership and noted some early
indications of its impact at school level, a serious commitment to reducing inequity in Australian
schooling will require significant additional and ongoing resources to make a substantial impact.
A number of overseas examples of weightings used within school funding arrangements provide
relevant context to setting an appropriate loading for Australia:
• In the Netherlands a low socioeconomic status loading is provided and varies from 30 to
120 per cent based on a measure of parental education and qualifications.
• In Alberta (Canada) a low socioeconomic status loading of 14 per cent applies based on a
socioeconomic status measure including parental education, family status, home ownership
and income.
For limited English language proficiency, a research report commissioned for the review found that, in
government schools, estimated targeted funding for English as a second language students in 2009–10
was $1852 per student, or approximately 17 per cent of average government school resourcing per
student (ACER 2011). This may be an underestimate to the extent that the Australian Council for
Educational Research report focused on targeted programs and did not fully capture elements of
general resourcing that also support English as a second language learners. That report also found
(albeit on limited evidence) that English as a second language programs are well established and
generally believed to be effective, albeit with some issues of unmet demand.
Overseas a number of countries and systems use loadings to provide additional resourcing to
overcome language difficulties and, in some cases, direct additional resources where limitations on
proficiency are greatest. For example:
• Alberta (Canada) – 36 per cent for students identified as having insufficient fluency in English to
achieve grade-level expectations.
• San Francisco (United States) – ranges from 61 to 94 per cent based on year level and performance
in an English language test.
While it is not possible at present to be specific about the level of each loading, in relative terms
the panel would expect the total resources to be allocated through them to be largest for low
socioeconomic status, then size and location, then Indigenous and then limited English language
proficiency. This reflects the relative number of students of each type across the whole schooling
system as well as the resource intensity of educational improvement. This does not take into account
students with disability as it was not possible to make indicative estimates for these until further work
on nationally consistent data are completed.
261

262

References
Anderson, DM 2011, ‘Maximising the impact of philanthropy in education’, Research Developments, vol.
25, pp. 12–15.
Auguste, B, Kihn, P & Miller, M 2010, Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining the top-third
graduates to careers in teaching, McKinsey & Company.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 1971, Schools, Australia, 1970, cat. no. 4221.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999 to 2010a, Consumer Price Index, Australia, 1999 to 2010, cat. no.
6401.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999 to 2010b, Labour Price Index, Australia, 1999 to 2010, cat. no.
6345.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, 2006 Census of Population and Housing, ABS, Canberra, viewed 1
September 2011,
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Census+data.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Education and Work, Australia, May 2008, cat. no. 6227.0, ABS,
Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, 2008,
cat. no. 4714.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010a, Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of findings, 2009,
cat. no. 4443.0, ABS, Canberra, viewed 9 September 2011,
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4430.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010b, Education and Training Experience, 2009, cat. no. 6278.0, ABS,
Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010c, Education and Work, Australia, May 2010, cat. no. 6227.0, ABS,
Canberra, viewed 1 September 2011,
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6227.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics rev. 2010d, Population Characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Australians, 2006, cat. no. 4713.0, ABS, Canberra, viewed 29 September 2011,
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/759789BB6EAD0F03CA2578DB00283CBB?opendoc
ument.
Australian Bureau of Statistics rev. 2010e, Schools, Australia, 2009, cat. no. 4221.0, ABS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011a, Australian Social Trends, Sep 2011, cat. no. 4102.0, ABS,
Canberra, viewed 1 September 2011,
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4102.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011b, ‘Non-residential building construction Australia’, index no.
3020, ‘Selected output of division E construction, subdivision and class index numbers’, table 15,
Producer Price Indexes, Australia, Sept 2011, cat. no. 6427.0, ABS, Canberra, viewed 1 December
2011,
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6427.0Sep%202011?OpenDocument.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011c, Schools, Australia, 2010, cat. no. 4221.0, ABS, Canberra, viewed
29 July 2011,
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4221.0.
263

Australian Council for Educational Research 2011, Assessment of current process for targeting of
schools funding to disadvantaged students, report prepared for the Review of Funding for
Schooling panel, ACER, Camberwell, Victoria.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority 2010a, ‘Methodology for reporting
financial data on the My School website’, letter from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, 18 November,
ACARA, Sydney, viewed 1 December 2011,
http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Deloitte_Letter_of_Accounting_Advice.pdf.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority 2010b, NAPLAN achievement in reading,
writing, language conventions and numeracy: National report for 2010, ACARA, Sydney.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority 2011, Guide to understanding ICSEA,
ACARA, Sydney.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2006, Disability updates: children with disabilities, Bulletin no.
42, AIHW cat. no. AUS 19, AIHW, Canberra, viewed 8 September 2011,
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467862.
Australian Taxation Office 2011, Endorsed DGR giftpack, Australian Taxation Office, Canberra, viewed
15 August 2011,
http://www.ato.gov.au/nonprofit/content.aspx?menuid=0&doc=/content/34490.htm&page=2#P13_502.
Baker, J & Adhikari, P 2007, Research paper: Socio-economic indexes for individuals and families, cat. no.
1352.0.55.086, Analytical Services Branch, Methodology Advisory Committee, Australian Bureau
of Statistics, Canberra.
Barber, M & Mourshed, M 2007, How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top,
report, McKinsey & Company.
Black, R 2009, Boardroom to classroom: The role of the corporate and philanthropic sectors in school
education, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Melbourne.
Bradley Report—see Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2008).
Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce 2011, Building the Education Revolution
Implementation Taskforce: Final report, BERIT, Sydney.
Business–School Connections Roundtable 2011, Realising potential: Businesses helping schools to
develop Australia’s future, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations,
Canberra.
Business Working with Education Foundation 2010, About us, Business Working with Education
Foundation, viewed 15 August 2011,
http://www.bwefoundation.org.au/about.
Cadzow, A 2007, A NSW Aboriginal education timeline 1788–2007, Board of Studies New South Wales,
Sydney, viewed 10 August 2011,
http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/aboriginal-studies/timeline.
Caldwell, B 2004, A private role in public education: An international perspective, Policymakers Exchange,
Center on Reinventing Public Education, Seattle.
Caldwell, BJ & Harris, J 2008, Why not the best schools?, Australian Council for Educational Research
Press, Camberwell, Victoria.
264

Caldwell, BJ & Spinks, JM 2008, Raising the stakes: From improvement to transformation in the reform of
schools, Routledge, London & New York.
Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney 2011, Key dates in our history, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, viewed
10 August 2011,
http://www.sydneycatholic.org/about/key_dates_in_our_history.shtml.
Centre for Community Child Health and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research 2009, A snapshot
of early childhood development in Australia—AEDI national report 2009, Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.
Charities Aid Foundation 2010, The World Giving Index 2010, Charities Aid Foundation.
Chiu, MM & Khoo, L 2005, ‘Effects of resources, inequality and privilege bias on achievement: Country,
school and student level analyses’, American Educational Research Journal, vol. 42(4), winter, pp.
575–603.
COAG Reform Council 2010a, National Education Agreement: Performance report for 2009, COAG Reform
Council, Sydney.
COAG Reform Council 2010b, National Education Agreement: Performance report for 2009, Volume 2,
Performance data, Report to the Council of Australian Governments, 30 September, COAG Reform
Council, Sydney, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.coagreformcouncil.gov.au/reports/education.cfm.
COAG Reform Council 2011, Education 2010: Comparing performance across Australia, COAG Reform
Council, Sydney.
Coopers & Lybrand 1994, Consultancy to investigate the elements of government school recurrent costs:
Report to the Department of Employment, Education and Training, February.
Deloitte Access Economics 2011, Assessing existing funding models for schooling in Australia, report
prepared for the Review of Funding for Schooling panel.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2008, Review of Australian higher
education: Final report, DEEWR, Canberra.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2010, Schools Assistance Act 2008
Administrative Guidelines: Commonwealth programs for non-government schools, 2009 to 2012:
2010 update, DEEWR, Canberra, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/Programs/Pages/SchoolsAssistanceAct2008.aspx.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2011a, Schools Assistance Act 2008
Administrative Guidelines: Commonwealth programs for non-government schools, 2009 to 2012:
2011 Update, DEEWR, Canberra, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/Programs/Pages/SchoolsAssistanceAct2008.aspx.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2011b, Student 2010 full year: Selected
higher education statistics publication, DEEWR, Canberra.
Department of Education, Science and Training 2002, Taking stock: Report of the survey of nongovernment
schools infrastructure in Australia 2000/2001, DEST, Canberra.
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs 1998, Schools funding: SES simulation project
report, DETYA, Canberra.
265

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs 1999, SES simulation project: Validation report: A
report on analyses to validate the outcomes of the Socioeconomic Status (SES) simulation project,
DETYA, Canberra.
Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) 1987, Schooling in Australia: statistical
profile no. 1, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) 1989, Schooling in Australia: statistical
profile no. 2, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs 1997, Schools funding: consultation
report: an issues paper on Commonwealth funding for schools arising from the Review of the
Education Resources Index (ERI), DEETYA, Canberra, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/schools/eri/report.pdf.
Department of Families and Community Services 2005, Giving Australia: Research on philanthropy in
Australia, summary of findings, Department of Families and Community Services, Canberra.
Dinham, S 2008, How to get your school moving and improving: an evidenced-based approach, Australian
Council for Educational Research Press, Camberwell, Victoria.
Field, S, Kuczera, M & Pont, B 2007, No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education, OECD, Paris.
Goodall, J & Vorhaus, J 2011, Review of best practice in parental engagement, Department for Education,
England, viewed 29 July 2011,
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RR156.
Goodwin, B 2010, Changing the odds for student success: What matters most, report, Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.changetheodds.org.
Hannon, V 2009, ‘Only Connect!’: A new paradigm for learning innovation in the 21st century, Centre for
Strategic Education, occasional paper no. 112.
Hanushek, E & Woessmann, L 2010, The high cost of low educational performance: The long-run
economic impact of improving PISA outcomes, OECD, Paris.
Hart, B, Brinkman, S & Blackmore, S 2003, How well are we raising our children in the north
metropolitan area? Results of the early development instrument, Population Health program,
North Metropolitan Health Service, Perth, Western Australia.
Hattie, J 2008, Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge,
London.
Hayes, D, Mills, M, Christie, P & Lingard, B 2006, Teachers and schooling making a difference: productive
pedagogies, assessment and performance, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Henderson, AT & Mapp, KL 2002, A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community
connections on student achievement: Annual synthesis 2002, National Center for Family and
Community Connections with Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin,
Texas.
266

Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission & Karmel, PH 1973, Schools in Australia:
Report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission, May, Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Jensen B, Reichl, J & Kemp, A 2011, ‘The real issue in school funding: An analysis of increasing
government school expenditure and declining performance’, The Australian Economic Review,
vol. 44(3), pp. 321–9.
Johnston, G 2004, Healthy, wealthy and wise? A review of the wider benefits of education, New Zealand
Treasury, working paper 04/04.
Karmel Report—see Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission (1973).
Keating, J, Annett, P, Burke, G & O’Hanlon, C 2011, Mapping funding and regulatory arrangements across
the Commonwealth and states and territories, report prepared by the University of Melbourne,
commissioned by the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development on
behalf of the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs.
KPMG 1996, Evaluation of the administration of the general recurrent grants for schools programme,
report to the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
KPMG Econtech 2010, Measuring the impact of the productivity agenda: Final report, February 2010,
prepared for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, DEEWR,
Canberra.
Ladwig, J, Gore, J, Amosa, W & Griffiths, T 2009, ‘Quality teaching matters’, Side by Side, issue 27,
August, p. 13, viewed 8 September 2011,
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/areas/sld/programs/tlsip/docs/qtmatters.pdf.
Lamb, S 2007, ‘School reform and inequality in urban Australia: A case of residualising the poor’,
in R Teese, S Lamb, M Duru-Bellat & S Helme (eds), International studies in educational
inequality, theory and policy, volume 3 – Inequality: Educational theory and public policy, Springer,
Netherlands, pp. 1–38.
Leadbeater, C & Wong, A 2010, Learning from the extremes, Cisco Systems, Cisco Public Information.
Leithwood, K, Seashore, L, Anderson, S & Wahlstrom, K 2004, How leadership influences learning,
Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, Ontario.
Levin, B 2003, Approaches to equity in policy for lifelong learning, paper commissioned by the Education
and Training Policy Division, OECD, for the Equity in Education Thematic Review.
Levin, B 2008, How to change 5000 schools: A practical and positive approach for leading change at every
level, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Lim, P & Gemici, S 2011, Measuring the socioeconomic status of Australian youth, National Centre for
Vocational Education Research.
Lochner, L 2011, Non-production benefits of education: Crime, health and good citizenship, National
Bureau of Economic Research, working paper 16722.
267

Lokan, J, Greenwood, L & Cresswell, J 2001, Fifteen-up and counting, reading, writing, reasoning: How
literate are Australia’s students? The PISA 2000 survey of students’ reading, mathematical and
scientific literacy skills, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria.
McClintock, P 2010, Statistics, public accountability and the federation, speech presented at the NatStats
2010 Conference, Sydney, 16 September, COAG Reform Council, Sydney, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.coagreformcouncil.gov.au/media/index.cfm#speeches.
McGregor-Lowndes, M, Newton, C & Marsden, S 2006, ‘Did tax incentives play any part in increased
giving?’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 41(4), pp. 493–509.
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs 2011a, Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander education action plan, 2010–2014, MCEECDYA, Carlton South, Victoria.
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs 2011b, Analysis of
national dataset—Non-financial data, Strategic Policy Working Group, MCEECDYA, Melbourne.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 1999, National report on
schooling in Australia 1999, MCEECDYA Secretariat, Victoria, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/mceecdya/anr_1999,12031.html#download.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 2001, National report on
schooling in Australia, 2001 report, statistical appendix, MCEECDYA Secretariat, Carlton South,
Victoria, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/mceecdya/anr.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 2003 to 2008, National report
on schooling in Australia, 2003 to 2008 reports, MCEECDYA Secretariat, Victoria, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/mceecdya/anr.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 2008, Melbourne Declaration
on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Curriculum Corporation, Carlton South, Victoria.
New South Wales Department of Education and Communities (NSW DEC) 2011a, New South
Wales Department of Education and Communities discussion paper: Australian school funding
arrangements, paper submitted to the Review of Funding for Schooling.
New South Wales Department of Education and Communities 2011b, Supporting low SES school
communities, NSW DEC, Sydney, viewed 8 September 2011,
http://www.lowsesschools.nsw.edu.au.
Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) 2010, The annual report of Her
Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2009/10, Ofsted,
The Stationery Office, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2007, PISA 2006: Science competencies for
tomorrow’s world, Executive summary, OECD, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2010, PISA 2009 results: Learning trends:
Changes in student performance since 2000 (Volume V), PISA, OECD Publishing,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091580-en.
268

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2011a, Building a high-quality teaching
profession: Lessons from around the world, Background report for the International Summit on
the Teaching Profession, OECD, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2011b, Education at a glance 2011: OECD
indicators, OECD, Paris, viewed 10 August 2011,
http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2011c, OECD reviews of evaluation and
assessment in education: Australia, report prepared by P Santiago, G Donaldson, J Herman & C
Shewbridge, OECD, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2011d, Overcoming school failure: Policies
that work, comparative draft report, OECD, Paris.
Perry, L & McConney, A 2010 ‘School socioeconomic composition and student outcomes in Australia:
Implications for educational policy’, Australian Journal of Education, vol. 54 (1), pp 72–85.
Philanthropy Australia 2011, Philanthropy sector overview, Philanthropy Australia, Melbourne, viewed
15 August 2011, http://www.philanthropy.org.au.
Preston, B 2010, ‘Notes on the ecological fallacy when area-based indexes of disadvantage/advantage
are applied to schooling in Australia’, Australian Policy Online, March, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2010/BPrestonMarch2010.pdf.
PricewaterhouseCoopers 2011, Trial of a model for collecting nationally consistent data on school
students with disability, report prepared for the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sydney.
Productivity Commission 2010, Contribution of the not-for-profit sector, research report, Canberra.
Productivity Commission 2011, Schools workforce, draft research report, Productivity Commission,
Canberra.
Public Education Foundation 2011, Public Education Foundation, Sydney, viewed 15 August 2011,
http://www.publiceducationfoundation.org.au.
Purdie, N & Buckley, S 2010, ‘School attendance and retention of Indigenous Australian students:
Issues paper no. 1’, produced for the Closing the Gap Clearinghouse, September, cat. no. IHW
33, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, viewed 8 September 2011,
http://www.aihw.gov.au/closingthegap/documents/issues_papers/ctg-ip01.pdf.
Quality of Education Review Committee (QERC) 1985, Quality of education in Australia: report of the
review committee, QERC, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Rorris, A, Weldon, P, Beavis, A, McKenzie, P, Bramich, M, & Deery, A 2011, Assessment of current
process for targeting of schools funding to disadvantaged students, report prepared for the Review
of Funding for Schooling panel by the Australian Council for Educational Research.
Sarra, C 2011, Strong and smart—Towards a pedagogy for emancipation: Education for first peoples,
Routledge, New York.
269

Scaife, W 2011, A transformational role: Donor and charity perspectives on major giving in Australia,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Shorten, B (Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation; Assistant Treasurer) 2011, Making
it easier for charities to help those who need it, media release no. 077, Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 10 May, viewed 15 August 2011,
http://www.dpm.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2011/077.htm&pageID=003&min=brs&Y
ear=&DocType=0.
South Australian Government, Department of Education and Children’s Services (SA DECS) 2010,
Inquiry into The Provision of Education to Students with Disabilities and Special Needs (Submission
No. 409), Department of Education and Children’s Services, South Australian Government
response to the New South Wales Legislative Council’s Inquiry conducted by the General
Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, viewed 8 September 2011,
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/c9c679328c480f05ca2576e20083b
38d/$FILE/Submission%20409.pdf.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2011a, Overcoming Indigenous
disadvantage: Key indicators 2011, Productivity Commission, Canberra, viewed 9 September 2011,
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/111609/key-indicators-2011-report.pdf.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2011b, Report on government
services 2011, Productivity Commission, Canberra, viewed 9 September 2011,
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/105294/015-chapter4-attachment.pdf.
Stockland 2010, Our faces, Our stories, Stockland, viewed 15 August 2011,
http://www.stockland.com.au/assets/about-stockland/our-faces-our-stories-2010.pdf.
The Nous Group 2011, Schooling challenges and opportunities, report prepared for the Review of
Funding for Schooling panel.
The Treasury 2000a, Accrual uniform presentation framework: For the presentation of uniform financial
information by Commonwealth, state and territory governments, April, The Treasury, Canberra.
The Treasury 2000b, Final budget outcome 1999–2000, The Treasury, Canberra, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.budget.gov.au/1999-00/finaloutcome/index.html.
The Treasury 2008 to 2011, Final budget outcome 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11, The Treasury,
Canberra, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.budget.gov.au/past_budgets.htm.
The Treasury 2010, Australia to 2050: Future challenges, Intergenerational Report 2010, The Treasury,
Canberra.
The Treasury 2011a, Budget 2011–12: Budget paper no.3: Australia’s federal relations 2011–12, The
Treasury, Canberra, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.budget.gov.au/2011–12/content/bp3/html/bp3_03_part_2c.htm.
The Treasury 2011b, Budget 2011–12: Portfolio budget statements, The Treasury, Canberra, viewed 29
July 2011,
http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/pbs/html/index.htm.
Thomson, S, Wernert, N, Underwood, C & Nicholas, M 2008, Highlights from TIMSS 2007 from Australia’s
perspective, highlights from the full report: Taking a closer look at mathematics and science in
Australia, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria.
270

Thomson, S, De Bortoli, L, Nicholas, M Hillman, K & Buckley, S 2011, Challenges for Australian
education: Results from PISA 2009: The PISA 2009 assessment of students’ reading, mathematical
and scientific literacy, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria.
Valadkhani A, Worthington, A & Layton, A 2005, ‘A note on the rising cost of education in Australia’,
Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy, vol. 24(2), June, pp. 97–106.
Vickers, M 2005, ‘In the common good: The need for a new approach to funding Australia’s schools’,
Australian Journal of Education, vol. 49(3), pp. 264–77.
Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Vic. DEECD) 2011, Student
resource package guide, Vic. DEECD, Melbourne, viewed 8 September 2011,
http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/finman/srp/2011SRPbudgetandguide.pdf.
Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority rev. 2011, Guide for a school applying to register:
Minimum standards and other requirements for school registration, Victorian Registration and
Qualifications Authority, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/vrqa/registration-newschoolguide.pdf.
Watson, L & Ryan, C 2010, ‘Choosers and losers: The impact of government subsidies on Australian
secondary schools’, Australian Journal of Education, vol. 54(1), March, pp. 86–107.
Wilkinson, I, Caldwell, B, Selleck, R, Harris, J & Dettman, P 2006, A history of state aid to
non-government schools in Australia, project funded by the Department of Education, Science
and Training, Canberra.
Wilkinson, R & Pickett, K 2009, The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone, Penguin Books,
London.
Wise, P & Mathews, R 2011, Research paper: Socio-economic indexes for areas: Getting a handle on
individual diversity within areas, cat. no. 1351.0.55.036, Analytical Services Branch, Methodology
Advisory Committee, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Witcombe, R 2011, Fundraising—the private-government schools gap, Pro Bono Australia, viewed 10
August 2011,
http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au.
Woessmann, L, Lüdemann, E, Schütz, G & West, M 2007, ‘School accountability, autonomy, choice,
and the level of student achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003’, OECD Education
Working Papers, no. 13, OECD Publishing, Paris, viewed 29 July 2011,
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/school-accountability-autonomy-choice-and-the-level-of-
student-achievement_246402531617.
Zammit, K, Sinclair, C, Cole, B, Singh, M, Costley, D, Brown a’Court, L & Rushton, K; School of
Education, University of Western Sydney; and Teaching Australia—Australian Institute for
Teaching and School Leadership 2007, Teaching and leading for quality Australian schools: A
review and synthesis of research-based knowledge, Teaching Australia, Australian National
University, Acton, Canberra, viewed 8 September 2011,
http://www.aitsl.edu.au/verve/_resources/Teaching_and_Leading_for_Quality_Australian_Schools.pdf.
271

272

Index
A
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education
Action Plan 2010–2014, 115, 259
Aboriginal students, see Indigenous students
ACARA, see Australian Curriculum, Assessment
and Reporting Authority
accountability, 52–3, 197, 216, 221
capital and infrastructure, 189–90; planning
for new schools, 100–1
disadvantage funding, 109, 136
funding principle, 151
National Schools Resourcing Body, 192
non-government schools, 195
OECD reviews, 47, 52
resource standard rationale, 155–6
school system block funding, 181
see also governance and regulation;
transparency
accrual accounting, 57–8, 66
ACER, 68, 123, 221, 229, 261
adequacy of school infrastructure, 96–7, 189
adjunct service costs, 161
administrative costs, 47, 130
administrative (specialist) staff, 14, 60–1
AEDI, 112, 119, 123
AGSRC, see Average Government School
Recurrent Costs
Allen Consulting Group, 156, 158, 160, 165, 229,
Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills
project, 33
assessment of need, 72–3, 75–81, 177
assets, 66–7, 78
capital stock, 94, 96–7, 189–90, 195
depreciation, 56t, 57, 66–7
notional user cost of capital, 56t, 57, 67
see also capital funding
Associations of Independent Schools, 7, 38, 47, 52
Australian Capital Territory, see states and
territories
Australian Charities and Non-for-Profits
Commission, 202
Australian Council for Educational Research, 68,
123, 221, 229, 261
Australian Curriculum, 33, 48, 215
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority (ACARA), 121, 195, 197
capital expenditure and funding data, 92
LBOTE measure, 118
net recurrent income reports, 14
see also My School website; socio-educational
advantage
Australian Early Development Index (AEDI), 112,
119, 123
Australian Government Business–School
Connections Roundtable, 205
Australian Government Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations, see
Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations
Australian Government Education Minister, 56, 90
Australian Primary Principals Association, 143
Australian Schools Commission Interim
Committee (Karmel) Report, 5, 38, 63
Australian Standard Geographic Classification, 72
autonomy, 175, 193
devolution of budgetary authority in systemic
schools, 6, 219, 221; government schools,
5–6, 41, 42–4, 87–8, 201
local solutions, 143–4
see also non-systemic schools
Average Government School Recurrent Costs
(AGSRC), 39, 55–72
purposes replaced by schooling resource
standard, 164
rates at which SES non-government schools
actually funded, 82, 83f
state and territory government
non-government school funding, 44–5
see also indexation
Page locators followed by f or t refer to items in figures or tables not discussed elsewhere on the page or the previous span of pages.
273

B
benchmarks
capital investment, 95–6
funding, 55, 61–7, 156–60
performance, 39, 41, 47–8
see also Average Government School
Recurrent Costs; schooling resource
standard
BER Cost Analysis Model (BER CAM) database,
95–6
Block Grant Authorities (BGAs), 90, 97t, 99
see also School Planning Authorities
boarding facilities, 6, 94
Bradley Report (Review of Australian Higher
Education), 31
broader outcomes of schooling, 33–4
Building the Education Revolution
Implementation Taskforce (BERIT), 95–6, 97t
recommendations made by, 96, 98, 99
Building the Education Revolution National
Partnership, 40t, 41, 91, 92
Caldwell, BJ & Spinks, JM, 105
campuses, 3, 72, 83, 168
capital expenditure, 16, 91–6, 188
accountability, 189–90; My School website
data, 87
enrolment share, 14
maintenance and minor works, 98, 189
non-inclusion in schooling resource standard,
160–1
supplementation for, 190
see also assets
capital funding, 14, 16, 87–101
recommended funding framework, 185–90
Capital Grants Program, 14, 90, 99
recommended funding framework, 188–9, 190
capital stock, 94, 96–7, 189–90, 195
cash-based expenditure, 57, 66
Catholic Education Commissions and Catholic
Education Offices, 6, 204
Catholic school fees and other private
contributions, 77f, 79
capital projects expenditure, 92t, 95f
as proportion of total gross recurrent income,
17f
see also fees and other private contributions
Catholic school funding, 14–17, 49–51, 63, 131
capital projects, 6–7, 14, 16, 92–4, 95f; Block
Grant Authorities, 90
Funding Maintained/Maintenance, 73, 74, 82,
83–4
history, 6, 38
see also non-government school funding
Catholic school sector representatives, 121, 193
Catholic school sector representatives,
submissions from
capital funding for new schools, 100
Funding Maintained/Maintenance, 82
SES funding model, 79
Catholic schools, 3–4, 6–7, 45t
disadvantaged student enrolment share, 9,
10f, 11
funding and enrolment share, 14
income and expenditure sources, 14–17
National Partnership schools, 131
non-systemic, 6, 8t, 47t, 74
reference schools, in resource standard
methodology, 159
student performance, 25–6, 211
see also non-government schools
Census of Population and Housing, 30
Collection District data, 72–3, 80
Centre for Community Child Health, 204
Centre for Research on Education Systems, 160
Charter for the Professional Learning of Teachers
and School Leavers, 216
Chiu, MM & Khoo, L, 108
choice in schooling, 11–13
funding principle, 150
clarity, see transparency
Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory
National Partnership, 40t, 130–1, 139–40
COAG, 29, 30, 39
students with disability trial, 121
COAG Reform Council, 41
Chair, 52
National Education Agreement targets report
(2010), 113, 115
Collection Districts, 72–3, 80
combined primary and secondary schools, 3, 4t
reference schools, in resource standard
methodology, 159
commissioned research, 229
Commissioned Research Paper, 228
submissions, 229t, 241–3, 253–4
community engagement, 144, 220
philanthropy, 199–206
274

school planning, 99–100, 101
schools with concentrations of disadvantage,
124, 142
Community Standard, 55
complexity, see transparency
computing, see information and communications
technology
concentrations of disadvantage, 124–6, 142, 144,
259–60
schooling resource standard loadings, 168
consultation and process, 227–30
Emerging Issues Paper, 228
listening tour, 228, 231–2
Paper on Commissioned Research, 228
school visits program, 237–9
see also submissions
Consumer Price Index, 64, 65f
cost drivers of capital, 94–5
Council of Australian Governments, see COAG
Country Areas Program, 130, 135
cross-sectoral collaborations, 203–4
current arrangements, 37–101
curriculum, 33, 48, 215, 218
D
data and data gaps, 52–3, 160
capital expenditure and funding, 92, 95–6;
school infrastructure, 96–7, 98, 100–1
outcomes of schooling, 33–4
recommendation on accountability, 197
Year 12 or equivalent attainment, 30–1
see also definitions; Ministerial Council for
Education, Early Childhood Development
and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) and
MCEECDYA data; My School website
data and data gaps on disadvantage, 111
disadvantaged LBOTE variable, 118
funding, 132, 135–7, 167, 183–4; state and
territory governments, 131
remoteness, 122
socioeconomic status, 124; measurement,
113
students with disability, 120–1, 167, 183–4
deductible gift recipients, 202, 203, 204, 205
definitions
disability, 119
equity, 105–6
language background other than English
(LBOTE), 118
reasonable adjustments, 120
school infrastructure, adequacy and quality
of, 96–7, 98, 99, 189
Deloitte Access Economics, 48, 195, 229, 255
Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 96, 121, 140, 187
AGSRC amounts, calculation of, 57, 58
school maintenance backlog, monitoring of, 98
SES scores calculations, 73
depreciation, 56t, 57, 66–7
destination surveys, 33–4
devolution of budgetary authority in systemic
schools, 6, 219, 221
government schools, 5–6, 41, 42–4, 201;
capital funding, 87–8
Digital Education Revolution National
Partnership, 40t, 41, 61, 91
disability, see students with disability
Disability Discrimination Act 1992, 120, 129
Disability Insurance Scheme, 184, 185
Disability Standards for Education, 120, 129
disadvantaged LBOTE variable, 118
disadvantaged students, 9–11, 12–13, 27–9,
105–43
scholarships, 203
see also English language proficiency;
Indigenous students; remote students;
socioeconomic status; students with
disability
disadvantaged students, funding for, 51–2, 129–45
AGSRC and equity, 62–4
justification for additional investment, 211–12
National Partnerships, 40t, 41, 130–1, 135,
139–45
philanthropy, 200–1, 203–4
recommended funding framework, 127
role in achieving greater equity, 109
SES funding model, 55, 71–86
state and territory governments, 44t, 45
see also loadings; targeted funding
donations, see philanthropy
E
early childhood development, 112–13, 119, 123
earnings, see income
Education Ministers, 88, 89, 191, 192, 195
Australian Government, 56, 90
see also Ministerial Council for Education,
Early Childhood Development and Youth
Affairs (MCEECDYA)
Education Resources Index (ERI), 71, 73, 76, 78
275

educational achievement, 19, 29–32
parental, and LBOTE student performance,
118
parental, and students’ achievement in
NAPLAN 2010 reading, 113–14
students with disability, 121
Youth Attainment and Transitions National
Partnership, 29, 40t, 41
see also Year 12 or equivalent attainment
educational disadvantage, see disadvantaged
students
emergency assistance funding, 42
Emerging Issues Paper, 228
submissions, 229t, 233–6, 247–53
employment-related expenses, 56, 58, 60–1, 64–5
long service leave expenses, 56t, 58, 66, 67
payroll tax, 56t, 58, 67
superannuation, 56t, 57t, 58, 66, 67
Empowering Local Schools National Partnership,
41, 216
engagement of community, see community
engagement
engagement of parents, 33, 142, 144, 220
English as a Second Language (ESL)—New
Arrivals Program, 130, 135
English language proficiency (LBOTE students,
ESL students), 10, 28t, 117–19
children developmentally vulnerable on two
or more AEDI domains, 112, 119
concentrations, 126
funding for, 42, 130, 133f, 134f, 135, 144;
schooling resource standard loading,
166–70, 261
Indigenous students, 119f, 123, 144
enrolments, see students
equity (fairness), 100, 105–43
funding principles, 149–50
see also disadvantaged students
ERI, 71, 73, 76, 78
expenditure, 13–14
accountability, 195, 221; My School website
data, 197
AGSRC amount calculations, 56–8, 60–4,
66–7; alternatives to, 68–9
AGSRC index calculation, 59
Commonwealth own-purpose, 41, 131
Education Resource Index arrangements, 76,
78
inclusion in schooling resource standard,
160–2
National Partnership arrangements, 41
public funding responsibilities, 179–80
see also capital expenditure; devolution of
budgetary authority in systemic schools;
employment-related expenses; fees and
other private contributions; funding
external quality assurance, 221
F
fairness, see equity
Federal Financial Relations Framework, 37, 39, 52
fees and other private contributions, 5, 12
capital expenditure source, 16, 91–2, 94, 95f
funding principles, 150
GDP percentage, 13
minimum private contribution, 175–6, 178–9
minimum public contribution, 84–5, 176–7,
178–9
need, assessment of, 72–3, 75–81, 177
philanthropy, 199–206
recommended funding framework, 173–9
recurrent income source, 15, 16–17; per
student, 15f
Field, S, Kuczera, M & Pont, B, 105, 109
finance, see expenditure; funding; income
findings, xxix–xxxii
findings on funding, 64, 66, 67
AGSRC, 62
approach, 49
minimum public contribution, 85
philanthropy, 205
systems, 53
findings on funding for disadvantaged students,
29, 52, 110
data gaps, 136
National Partnership arrangements, 145
students with disability, 135
findings on school infrastructure, 98, 100
planning for new, 101
findings on students, 29, 52, 110, 135, 136
early childhood development, 113
performance and outcomes, 22, 34, 122, 123,
126, 145; Year 12 or equivalent attainment, 32
responsibilities for, 196–7
funding, 13–17, 149–212
current arrangements, 37–101
see also benchmarks; capital funding;
disadvantaged students, funding for;
fees and other private contributions;
governance and regulation; methodologies
for redistributing funds; recurrent funding;
state and territory government funding
276

funding framework, see recommendations on
funding framework
Funding Guaranteed, 74, 83f
Funding Maintained/Maintenance, 73–4, 82–4
funding principles, 149–51
G
GDP, see gross domestic product
general recurrent funding, see recurrent funding
goods and services tax, 38, 180
governance and regulation, 5–8, 94, 100
government schools, 5–6, 41, 42–4, 87–9
recommendations, 180, 191–7; aims for
disadvantaged students, 145
registration and facilities standards, 88–9, 96–7
School Growth Fund arrangements, 187–8
School Infrastructure Development
arrangements, 188–9
see also accountability; autonomy; legislation;
National Schools Resourcing Body;
non-systemic schools; systemic schools
government expenditure, see funding
government school capital expenditure, 16, 91–3,
94f, 95f
enrolment share, 14
government school capital funding, 16, 90–1, 95f,
99
enrolment share, 14
recommended funding framework, 185–90
state and territory governments, 16, 87–8, 92t
government school fees and other private
contributions, 5, 77f, 174
capital projects expenditure, 91, 92t, 95f
as proportion of total gross recurrent income,
17f
see also fees and other private contributions
government school funding, 14–17, 39–41, 42–4,
49–53
AGSRC amounts, 39, 62, 63; calculation, 56–8
AGSRC index calculation, 59
disadvantaged students, 131, 132–4; state and
territory governments, 131–2
maintenance and minor works, 98, 189
net recurrent income, 14–15, 162–3
philanthropy, 200, 201–2, 203
recommended funding framework, 174–5,
179–83, 189
see also National Partnership arrangements
government school sector representatives, 121,
193
government school sector representatives,
submissions from
AGSRC, 62, 63
capital funding for new schools, 100
disadvantaged students, 124
maintenance and minor works, 98
SES funding model, 79
government schools, 3–4, 5–6, 11–13, 45t
disadvantaged student enrolment share, 9–10
funding and enrolment share, 14, 62
infrastructure, 89, 97, 99–100, 185–90;
maintenance and minor works, 98, 189
National Partnership schools, 131
new, 88–9, 100
quality teaching study, 140
reference schools, in resource standard
methodology, 159
special schools, 119
student performance, 25–6, 211
gross domestic product (GDP), 32
expenditure as percentage, 13
philanthropic monetary giving as percentage,
199
Year 12 or equivalent attainment gains, 30
GST, 38, 180
H
Hannon, V, 219
Hanushek, E & Woessmann, L, 19
Henderson, AT & Mapp, KL, 144
high schools, see secondary schools
higher education, 31, 114, 117, 121, 122
higher education institutions, 200–1, 203, 204
I
ICSEA, 80–1
ICT, see information and communications
technology
income (personal), 29
by highest level of education, 30f
people with disability, 121
teacher and administrative staff wages, 60–1
income (schools), 14–15, 49, 51f, 162–3, 199
see also fees and other private contributions;
funding
independent school funding, 14–17, 45–7, 49–51,
131
capital projects, 14, 16, 92–4, 95f; Block Grant
Authorities, 90
277

Funding Maintained/Maintenance, 73–4, 82,
83, 84f
see also fees and other private contributions;
non-government school funding
independent school sector representatives, 121,
independent school sector representatives,
submissions from
capital funding for new schools, 100
Funding Maintained/Maintenance, 82
maintenance and minor works, 98
SES funding model, 79
independent schools, 3–4, 7–10
disadvantaged student enrolment share, 9,
10f, 11
funding and enrolment share, 14
National Partnership schools, 131
non-systemic, 7, 8t, 47
reference schools, in resource standard
methodology, 159
student performance, 25–6, 211
systemic, 45–7
Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage
(ICSEA), 80–1
indexation, 62, 64–6, 68
calculation, 59
capital funding, 190
Funding Maintained, 74
schooling resource standard arrangements,
170–1
Indigenous Education Policy, 129
Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act
2000, 131
Indigenous languages, 123, 144
Indigenous students, 52, 106, 115–17, 123
attendance, 116, 144
children developmentally vulnerable on two
or more AEDI domains, 112
colonial period, 5
concentrations, 125–6, 144, 168, 259–60
full-time equivalent, 4
sectoral enrolments, 9, 10, 11, 28t
state or territory of residence, 27, 28t, 117;
remote Northern Territory, 144
Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates, 29,
30–1, 115, 117
Indigenous students, funding for, 131, 133f
Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory
National Partnership, 40t, 130–1, 139–40
government schools, 134f
legislative and policy developments
influencing, 129
non-government schools, 72, 130
schooling resource standard loading, 166–70
Smarter Schools—Low Socioeconomic Status
School Communities National Partnership,
144
state and territory governments, 132
inflation, see indexation
information and communications technology
Digital Education Revolution National
Partnership, 40t, 41, 61, 91t
literacy, 33
infrastructure, see capital funding
innovation, 219–20
Intergenerational Report 2010, 32
Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal
Financial Relations, 37
see also National Education Agreement
Interim Committee for the Australian Schools
Commission (Karmel) Report, 5, 38, 63
international comparisons, 11, 12f
disadvantaged students, 124
expenditure, 13
loadings, 261
philanthropy, 199, 200
teachers and teaching, 107, 217
international comparisons of student
assessments, 20, 22–3, 109f
equity classification, 106–7
Indigenous students, 116
low socioeconomic status of students, 114,
211
J
justification for additional investment, 211–12
K
Karmel Report, 5, 38, 63
Keating, J et al., 88
KPMG Econtech, 30
L
Labour Price Index, 61, 64, 65f
language background other than English (LBOTE),
see English language proficiency
language spoken at home, 118, 123
leadership, 142–3, 203, 219, 220
see also principals
278

legislation, 5, 6, 39, 129
disability discrimination, 120, 129
Indigenous education assistance, 131
National Schools Resourcing Body, 165–6,
192
recommendation, 195–6
school registration, 88–9
Schools Assistance Act 2008, 42, 45–6, 56
trust laws, 202
Linking Schools and Early Years Project, 203–4
listening tour, 228, 231–2
literacy and numeracy, 20–8, 33, 106–7, 108–9,
141–5, 203
English language proficiency of students,
117–19
Indigenous students, 115–16
National Partnership, 40t, 41, 130–1, 139–40,
141, 143
remote students, 121–2
Smarter Schools—Low Socioeconomic Status
School Communities National Partnership,
142
socioeconomic status of students, 113–15, 211
targeted non-government school funding,
130, 134, 135
see also NAPLAN; PISA
Literacy and Numeracy Pilots for Low
Socioeconomic Status School Communities, 143
Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs
Program, 130, 134, 135
loadings, 155, 166–71
current arrangements, 72, 129, 130
methodology for estimating, 257–61
modelled results, 207–9
recommended funding framework, 175, 176,
184–5
Local Schools Working Together, 91
local solutions, 143–4
see also autonomy; community engagement
location, see remote locations; states and
territories
long service leave expenses, 56t, 58, 66, 67
low socioeconomic status, see socioeconomic
status
M
McKinsey and Company, 23
maintenance and minor works, 98
recommended funding framework, 189
major works, see capital funding
mathematics, see numeracy
measurement of need, 72–3, 75–81, 177
median weekly earnings, see income (personal)
Melbourne Declaration, 33, 47–8, 200, 217
equity goal, 106
outcome benchmark to reflect goals, 68, 157
mentoring programs, 144, 200–1, 203
teachers, 141, 142
methodologies for redistributing funds, 42–7,
52–3
for capital projects, 99, 187
recommended funding framework, 181, 187
metropolitan school loadings, 167–8, 258
metropolitan students, 121–2
Indigenous, 123
minimum private contribution, 175–6, 178–9
minimum public contribution, 84–5, 176–7, 178–9
Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood
Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA)
and MCEECDYA data, 56–9, 66, 197
Indigenous students, 125–6, 259
LBOTE, 118
National Schools Resourcing Body, 192, 193
remoteness, 121, 122, 168
socioeconomic status, 124–5
Strategic Policy Working Group, 122, 124–6,
259
students with disability, 167–8, 184
Ministers, see Education Ministers
minor works, see maintenance and minor works
More Support for Students with Disabilities
National Partnership, 40t, 130–1
My School website, 47, 80
recommendation, 197
socio-educational advantage (SEA) measure,
113
students with disability, 120
My School website financial data, 47, 67, 87, 156,
161, 166
non-government systems and independent
schools, 195
recommendations, 181, 197
school systems, 181
N
NAPLAN (National Assessment Program—
Literacy and Numeracy), 24–8, 33, 47, 218
My School website results, 80, 120
reference schools, in resource standard
methodology, 157–8, 159, 160
279

NAPLAN (National Assessment Program—
Literacy and Numeracy) performance by
disadvantaged students, 141–2
disability, 120
English language proficiency (LBOTE), 117–19,
144
Indigenous, 115–16, 119f, 123, 144;
concentrations, 125–6, 259–60
remote, 121–2
socioeconomic status, 124–5, 259; reading
achievement by parental education, 113–14
national curriculum, 33, 48, 215
National Disability Insurance Scheme, 184, 185
National Disability Strategy, 120
National Education Agreement, 41, 47–8, 106
COAG Reform Council’s 2010 report on
progress, 113, 115
Indigenous students, 115
recommendations, 193–5
Year 12 or equivalent attainment targets, 29,
30–1
National Partnership arrangements, 39–41, 49
disadvantaged student support, 40t, 41, 130–1,
135, 139–45
recommended funding framework, 182
school infrastructure, 40t, 41, 61, 90–1
National Partnerships, 39–41
Building the Education Revolution, 40t, 41,
91t, 92
Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory, 40t,
130–1, 139–40
Digital Education Revolution, 40t, 41, 61, 91t
Empowering Local Schools, 41, 216
More Support for Students with Disabilities,
40t, 130–1
Smarter Schools—Improving Teacher Quality,
40t, 41, 139–41
Smarter Schools—Literacy and Numeracy,
40t, 41, 130–1, 139–40, 141, 143
Smarter Schools—Low SES School
Communities, 40t, 41, 130–1, 139–40, 142,
144, 261
Trade Training Centres in Schools, 40t, 41, 91t
Youth Attainment and Transitions, 29, 40t, 41
National Professional Standards for Principals,
205, 216
National Professional Standards for Teachers,
205, 215–16
National Public Private Partnership Policy and
Guidelines, 91
National report on schooling in Australia
(MCEECDYA) data, 56–9, 66
National Schools Resourcing Body, 165–6, 191–3,
195
advisory group, 193, 195
capital and infrastructure, 189, 190
indexation and review, 170–1
national data collection, 197
non-government schools’ eligibility for full
public funding, 176
philanthropic fund, 204
students with disability funding, 184, 185
National Schools SPP, 39, 41, 61, 90
National Teacher Performance and Development
Framework, 216
National Youth Participation Requirement, 216
need, 29, 52
assessment, 72–3, 75–81, 177–9
funding principle, 150
SES funding model, 55, 71–86
see also disadvantaged students
net recurrent income, see recurrent income
new schools and school expansions, 88–9, 100–1
recommended funding framework, 187–8, 190
New Schools Policy, 100–1
New South Wales, 25, 142
philanthropic giving, 203
quality teaching study, 140
see also states and territories
New South Wales Department of Education and
Communities, 203
LBOTE student analysis, 118–19
non-English speaking backgrounds, see English
language proficiency
non-government school capital expenditure, 16,
92–4, 95f
enrolment share, 14
non-government school capital funding, 16, 91–4,
95f
Capital Grants Program, 14, 90, 99, 188–9, 190
enrolment share, 14
National Partnership arrangements, 91t
for new schools, 100–1
recommended funding framework, 185–90
state and territory governments, 16, 88, 89t,
92t
non-government school funding, 14–17, 42, 44–7,
48, 49–53, 130
AGSRC amounts, 62–4; time lag, 58
philanthropy, 200, 201, 203
principles, 149–51
recommendations, 195; funding framework,
175–83
280

SES model, 55, 71–86, 177–9
systemic/non-systemic schools, 45–7, 52–3,
74, 161, 195
see also fees and other private contributions;
National Partnership arrangements;
targeted funding
non-government school sector representatives,
121, 193
non-government school sector representatives,
submissions from
AGSRC, 62–3, 67
Capital Grants Program indexation, 190
Funding Maintained/Maintenance, 82
maintenance and minor works, 98
SES funding model, 79
non-government schools, 3–4, 6–13
infrastructure, 97, 98, 99–100, 185–90; see
also non-government school capital funding
new, 100–1; registration, 89
reference schools, in resource standard
methodology, 159
see also Catholic schools; independent schools
non-metropolitan students, see remote students
non-systemic schools, 7, 8t, 47
Catholic, 6, 8t, 47t, 74
non-teaching (specialist) staff, 14, 60–1
Northern Territory, 143, 144
see also states and territories
notional user cost of capital, 56t, 57, 67
Nous Group, 97, 100, 229
numeracy (mathematical literacy), 20–6, 28, 106,
141–2
English as a second language students, 126
National Partnership, 40t, 41, 130–1, 139–40,
141
socioeconomic background of students, 115t,
211
targeted non-government school funding, 42
O
Office for Standards in Education, Children’s
Services and Skills (Ofsted), 53, 221
operating expenses, 56t, 60f
see also employment-related expenses
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
Development (OECD)
choice between government and
non-government schools, 12
equity and disadvantage, 108, 140, 142
evaluation and assessment, 47, 52
see also international comparisons
out-of-school expenses, 56t, 57
outcomes, see performance and outcomes
P
Paper on Commissioned Research, 228
submissions, 229t, 241–3, 253–4
parent educational achievement, 113–14, 118
parent engagement, 33, 142, 144, 220
Participation Requirement, 216
partnership approach, 37–8
funding principle, 150
recommended funding framework, 179–80,
193–5
school and business, 201, 203
school and community, 200–1
see also National Partnership arrangements
payroll tax, 56t, 58, 67
pedagogy, see teachers and teaching
per student amounts, AGSRC, 39, 62–4
calculation, 56–8
non-government school time lag, 58
see also indexation
per student amounts, schooling resource
standard, 156, 165–6
indexation and review, 170–1
methodology for estimating, 255–61
modelled results, 207–9
see also loadings
per student amounts, SES, 71–4
performance and outcomes, 19–34, 111–27
accountability, 197
funding approach, 136; schooling resource
standard rationale and methodology, 154–61,
255–61
funding principle, 150
OECD studies, 47, 52
see also educational achievement; literacy
and numeracy; Year 12 or equivalent
attainment
performance management, 142
Perry, L & McConney, A, 124, 125
philanthropic fund, 204
recommendation, 206
philanthropy, 199–206
barriers to, 201–2
business, 201–3, 204, 205
Philanthropy Australia, 199
PISA, 20–2, 23f, 25–6, 108–9, 211–12
English language proficiency of students, 117
281

equity classification, 106–7
high-performing secondary and combined
schools in NAPLAN, 159
Indigenous students, 116, 123
location of students, 122
socioeconomic status of students, 114, 115f,
125, 211; measurement, 113
planning for school infrastructure, 99–101
School Planning Authorities, 186–8, 195
primary school funding (AGSRC) per student
amounts, 39
calculation, 57–8
Catholic schools, 63f
cumulative change compared to CPI and LPI,
65f
reasons for growth, 60, 61
primary school funding (resource standard)
per student amounts, 156, 165
methodology for estimating, 255–7
modelled results, 207–9
primary schools, 3, 4t
capital funding, 91t
enrolments, 45t, 47t
Indigenous student attendance, 116
OECD countries, 12f
reference schools, in resource standard
methodology, 159
principals, 141, 201
leadership, 142–3, 218, 219
National Professional Standards, 205, 216
principles, see funding principles
private expenditure, see fees and other private
contributions
private schools, see non-government schools
process and consultation, see consultation and
process
Producer Price Index – Non-Residential Building
Construction, 190
Productivity Commission, 66, 140, 205, 218
professional development for teachers, 140, 142,
144, 201, 216, 217–18
principals, 143, 201
Program for International Student Assessment,
see PISA
provincial students, see remote students
public expenditure, see funding
public private partnerships, 91
public schools, see government schools
public submissions, see submissions
Q
quality assurance, 221
quality of education, 20–9, 65
quality of school infrastructure, 96–7, 189–90
quality of teaching, 23, 107, 140–3, 217–18
National Partnership, 40t, 41, 139–41
see also professional development for
teachers
Queensland, 143, 203
Teaching and Learning School Improvement
Framework, 221
see also states and territories
R
rationale for AGSRC, 61–2, 66
rationale for schooling resource standard, 154–6
loadings, 166–7, 257
readiness for school, and disadvantage, 112–13,
119, 123
reading literacy, see literacy and numeracy
reasonable adjustments, 120, 121
recommendations, xxi–xxviii
recommendations on funding framework, 75–84,
173–90
capital and infrastructure, 185–90
disadvantage, 127, 137, 145; students with
disability, 183–5
funding principles, 149–51
roles, 179–80
systems, 181
targeted funding programs, 182
transitional arrangements, 182–3
recommendations on governance and regulation,
145, 180, 191–7
accountability, 197
legislation, 195–6
National Education Agreement, 193–5
National Schools Resourcing Body, 170–1,
176, 185, 189, 190, 191–3, 197; advisory
group, 193
roles, 193–5
recommendations on philanthropy, 206
recommendations on schooling resource
standard, 69
application, 164–5
indexation and review, 170–1
linking funding to outcomes, 156–60
loadings, 166–71
per student amounts, 165–6
282

scope of costs, 160–2
state adjustments, 162–3
recurrent funding, 15, 39, 41, 42–5, 49–53
administrative costs, 47
disadvantaged student funding as percentage,
132
maintenance and minor works, 98, 189
per student, 15f, 49, 50f, 51f
recommended funding framework, 173–85,
189
schooling resource standard, 69, 153–69;
modelled results, 207–9
SES model, 55, 71–86
see also Average Government School
Recurrent Costs; disadvantaged students,
funding for; state and territory government
funding; targeted funding
recurrent income, 14–15, 49, 51f, 162–3
redundancies, 56t, 58, 59
reference schools, 156–60
reform agenda, 29, 215–21
economic contribution, 30
Federal Financial Relations Framework, 37,
39, 52
funding principle, 150
see also National Education Agreement;
National Partnership arrangements
refugee students, 118, 119f, 203
registration, 88–9, 96, 97t
regulation, see governance and regulation
religious schools, 6–7, 8t, 46t
see also Catholic schools; independent
schools
remote locations, 3, 5, 121
non-government school recurrent funding, 72
teacher retention rates, 141
remote students, 10, 11, 28t, 121–2
children developmentally vulnerable on two
or more AEDI domains, 112
Indigenous, 123, 144
see also boarding facilities
remote students, funding for, 133f
government schools, 134f
non-government schools, 130, 135
schooling resource standard loading, 166–70,
258, 260
state and territory governments, 132
Remote Teaching Service, 141
Report of the Interim Committee for the Australian
Schools Commission (Karmel Report), 5–6, 38,
Report on Government Services, 66
resource standard, see schooling resource
standard
resourcing, see funding
Review of Australian Higher Education (Bradley
Report), 31
Review of Funding for Schooling: Emerging Issues
Paper, 228
submissions, 229t, 233–6, 247–53
Review of Funding for Schooling: Paper on
Commissioned Research, 228
submissions, 229t, 241–3, 253–4
reviews of funding arrangements, 171
roles in public funding, 37–53
National Schools Resourcing Body, 191
recommended funding framework, 179–80,
193–5
see also non-systemic schools; state and
territory government funding; systemic
schools
Rorris, A et al., 132, 135, 136
rural locations, see remote locations
S
scholarships, 203, 204
school assets, see assets
school attendance by Indigenous students, 116
school boarding facilities, 7, 94
school campuses, 3, 72, 83, 168
school destination surveys, 33–4
school fees, see fees and other private
contributions
school governance, see governance and regulation
School Growth Fund, 187–8
indexation, 190
school infrastructure, see capital funding
School Infrastructure Development Grants, 188–9
indexation, 190
School Languages Program, 42
school leadership, 142–3, 219, 220
see also principals
school leaving age, 216
School Planning Authorities, 186–8, 195
school readiness and disadvantage, 112–13, 119,
123
school registration, 88–9, 96, 97t
school visits program, 237–9
schooling performance, see performance and
outcomes
schooling resource standard, 153–71
funding framework, 173–90
283

modelled results, 207–9
recommendations, 69, 156–69
schooling system, 3–17
see also government schools;
non-government schools
Schools Assistance Act 2008, 42, 45–6, 56
scientific literacy, 20, 22–3, 115f
scope of AGSRC, 66–9
secondary school funding (AGSRC) per student
amounts, 39
calculation, 57–8
Catholic schools, 63f
cumulative change compared to CPI and LPI,
65f
reasons for growth, 60, 61
secondary school funding (resource standard)
per student amounts, 156, 165
methodology for estimating, 255–7
modelled results, 207–9
secondary schools, 3, 4t
capital funding, 91t
enrolments, 13, 45t, 47t
Indigenous students, 200–1; attendance, 116
OECD countries, 11, 12f
reference schools, in resource standard
methodology, 159
see also Year 12 or equivalent attainment
sector costs, 161
sectors, see government schools;
non-government schools
selective schools, 6, 13, 25, 201
Short Term Emergency Assistance, 42
Smarter Schools National Partnerships
Improving Teacher Quality, 40t, 41, 139–41
Literacy and Numeracy, 40t, 41, 130–1, 139–40,
141, 143
Low SES School Communities, 40t, 41, 130–1,
139–40, 142, 144, 261
Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas, 80
socioeconomic status, 9–11, 12, 27, 28t, 111–15
concentrations, 124–5, 168, 259–60
government school enrolments, decline in, 13
Indigenous students, 123
student performance, 52, 113–15, 211
Socioeconomic Status (SES) funding model, 55,
71–86
socioeconomic status student funding, 132, 133f,
134f
National Partnership, 40t, 41, 130–1, 139–40,
142, 144, 261
recommended funding framework, 177–9
schooling resource standard loading, 166–70,
261
284
state and territory governments, 132
socio-educational advantage (SEA), 9–11, 27, 28t
My School website data, 113
NAPLAN school reading scores for
concentrations, 259
South Australia, 143
see also states and territories
South Australian Department of Education and
Children’s Services, 143
special assistance schools, 72, 176
special schools, 4t, 94, 119, 121
recommended funding framework, 176, 185
SES funding, 72
see also students with disability
specialist (administrative) staff, 14, 60–1
Specific Purpose Payments (SPPs), 39
National Schools, 39, 41, 61, 90
see also National Partnership arrangements
state and territory education authorities, see
government school sector representatives
state and territory government funding, 15, 15f,
42–5, 48–52
capital, 16, 87–9, 92t, 93, 94f, 95f
disadvantaged students, 129, 131–2, 134;
National Partnership co-investment
requirement, 130
see also partnership approach
state and territory government schools, see
government schools
state and territory student performance, 25,
26–8
outcomes data instruments, 33–4
Year 12 or equivalent attainment, 31–2
states and territories, 196–7
capital expenditure, 93, 95f
devolution of decision making, 5–6, 41, 42–4,
87–8
disadvantaged student funding in government
schools, 132–4
Indigenous Year 12 attainment levels, 117
National Schools SPP funding, 39, 40f
net recurrent income, 15; schooling resource
standard adjustments to reflect differences,
162–3
remote students, 10, 28t
school visits program, 237–9
student boarding facilities, 7, 94
student performance, see performance and
outcomes
student–staff ratios, 61
students (enrolments, school size), 4, 7, 8t, 9–13
AGSRC amounts, 39; calculation, 57–8
AGSRC index calculation, 59

Funding Maintained and SES funded schools,
83
future demands and new schools, 100–1,
187–8
income and expenditure share, 14
non-systemic schools, 47t
school leaving age, 216
schooling resource standard loading, 167–70,
260
systemic schools, 45t
see also disadvantaged students
students with disability, 4, 119–21
Indigenous, 123
sectoral enrolments, 9, 10, 11, 28t
state or territory of residence, 28t
see also special schools
students with disability, funding for, 68, 133f, 134–5
legislative and policy developments
influencing, 129
More Support National Partnership, 40t,
130–1
non-government schools, 130
recommended funding framework, 183–5
schooling resource standard loading, 167
submissions, 229t, 233–6, 245–54
draft terms of reference, 229t, 245
Emerging Issues Paper submissions, 229t,
233–6, 247–53
government school sector representatives,
62, 63, 79, 98
non-government school sector
representatives, 79, 82, 98, 124, 190;
AGSRC, 62–3, 67
Paper on Commissioned Research, 229t,
241–3, 253–4
subsidiarity principle, 45, 181
Catholic schools, 6
superannuation, 56t, 57t, 58, 66, 67
Survey of Education and Work (ABS), 30
systemic schools, 45–7, 52–3, 219
costs, 161
Funding Maintained/Maintenance, 83
recommendations, 195; funding framework,
181
see also non-government schools
T
targeted funding, 42, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136
recommended funding framework, 182
state and territory governments, 44, 129;
government schools, 43t
see also National Partnership arrangements;
Specific Purpose Payments
Tasmania, see states and territories
taxation
GST, 38, 180
incentives to donate (deductible gift
recipients), 202, 203, 204, 205
payroll tax, 56t, 58, 67
teacher–student ratios, 61
teachers and teaching, 14, 215–16, 217–18
capacity building to develop business and
community partnerships, 205
disadvantaged students, 124; practice to
improve outcomes for, 140–3
employment-related expenses, 60–1, 62;
Catholic sector in 1960s, 38
National Professional Standards, 205, 215–16
quality, 23, 107, 140–3, 217–18
Smarter Schools National Partnerships, 40t,
41, 139–41
workforce reform, 218
see also professional development for
teachers
technologies, see information and
communications technology
terms of reference, 225–6
submissions on draft, 229t, 245
tertiary entrance assessment rankings, NSW, 25
TIMMS, 22–3
Torres Strait Islander students, see Indigenous
students
Trade Training Centres in Schools National
Partnership, 40t, 41, 91t
transitional arrangements, 182–3
transparency, 48–9, 53, 193–7, 216
AGSRC, 64–7
capital and infrastructure, 186; planning for
new schools, 100–1
disadvantage funding, 109, 137
funding principle, 151
OECD reviews, 47
school system block funding, 181
schooling resource standard, 69, 165–6, 171;
loadings, 166–7
SES funding model, 78–9, 80–1; Collection
Districts, 80
see also accountability
Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study, 22–3
trust laws, 202
285

U
unemployment rate, people with reported
disabilities, 121
universities, 200–1, 203, 204
university education, 31, 114, 117, 121, 122
University of Melbourne Centre for Research on
Education Systems, 160
value for money, 95–6, 97t
funding principle, 151
Vickers, M, 100
Victoria, 203, 204
see also states and territories
Victorian Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development, 203
vocational education and training programs, 40t,
41, 91t
see also Year 12 or equivalent attainment
volunteering, 199, 203
W
wages, 60–1, 62
see also employment-related expenses
Watson, L & Ryan, C, 13
weekly earnings, see income (personal)
Western Australia, 80, 143
see also states and territories
writing, see literacy and numeracy
Y
Year 12 or equivalent attainment, 29–32
Indigenous students, 29, 30–1, 115, 116–17
low socioeconomic status, 114
parental, and students’ achievement in
NAPLAN 2010 reading, 113
remote students, 122
students with disability, 121
Youth Attainment and Transitions National
Partnership, 29, 40t, 41
Youth Participation Requirement, 216
286

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Rant time again.

The current dreadful bushfires in New South Wales have brought out some of the worst in politicians.

We have a Prime Minister (or is that prim monster) who is wandering around with a fireman’s hat on and getting his photo taken by all and sundry. These photos, taken by ad hoc phone cameras apparently (if you believe that you are too naive to read on), are being published in newspapers and on line in social media. The idiot is grandstanding at a level which simply hasn’t been seen in modern Australian politics and it is a disgrace.

The same Prim Monster has now made eleigibility for aid for fire victims more difficult and has reduced the amount payable all as the fires are ravaging the country. Be a little bit sensitive to the victims you bloody fool!

Fire stations and facilities have been underfunded and some services completely removed or “rationalised” in New South Wales by the Liberal premier and this creature is now bleating about preparedness when his own actions have made everything from fighting fires to public information dissemination more difficult due to low staffing levels. Saving money on emergency services costs lives you bloody moron.

If there is anything positive to come out of all this it will be the bravery of the fire-fighters and the community spirit that always prevails in bushfire struck communities in this country. Their spirit makes people like Abbott and O’Farrell look even worse and our larger community needs to react and throw these bastards out next election.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left Politics

Carrot or stick?

Carrot or Stick?

 

the Need for Action on Climate Change.

 

 

 

Introduction

 

In recent years the science of climate change has been argued and the result has largely been that those who deny human intervention in the changes to climate have found prosperous donors who are supporting their view that humans have nothing or little to do with climate change and that the phenomenon of climate change is a natural cyclical process.

 

The climate scientists have come up against the solid wall of sceptics who are supported, not because those supporters necessarily believe the sceptics point of view, but because it is in their financial interest to cast doubt on the whole science because if they are to support the notion of human causes for climate change then they might have to change their productive systems to less harmful means of production and this would cost them money or lead to a diminution of their profits.

 

So is it all about money? In a word, yes.

 

Carrot or stick?

 

Governments internationally have made moves to create a carbon price or a carbon trading market to allow those who have heavily polluting industrial systems to trade out of their situation but is this the answer? The stick used by some, but not all governments, is to tax those polluters. This is a stick approach where the polluters are taxed for their actions in pollution but the truth is what really needs to be changed is their behaviour not that they should be given a means to continue their polluting ways.

 

The carrot approach would be far more effective especially if we consider the continuous complaints from industry about their rights and their costs etcetera. Governments should reward those companies and enterprises who make dramatic changes to their production systems and their internal culture to move away from carbon intensive manufacturing toward cleaner energy and production systems. Not to do so is counter-productive. The stick used to bash the polluters over the head could be used to reward clean industry. That would mean that all taxes or other methods to penalise polluters should all be redirected to the users of clean systems.

 

So the real way to implement change is to use both the carrot and the stick but make sure that industry and other enterprises are aware that by making change they will not only contribute to a cleaner world but their commitment to cleaner technologies will be rewarded by the government in a purely financial manner which can then allow them to further develop cleaner systems and make greater profits.

 

Government Contracts

 

Governments should ensure that all their contractors are obliged to use clean systems. If the goods and services needed cannot be sourced from companies and enterprises with thoroughly clean energy and production systems then an assessment of the level of compliance should be made and the cleanest source of goods and services should be used even if their pricing is slightly higher. This would lead to more companies, who tender for government contracts, being much more mindful of their polluting systems.

 

Conclusion

 

In the long run we should not be asking if a carbon tax is advisable what we should be asking is how can we encourage social, industrial and commercial change to ensure a culture where we are constantly moving toward a totally cleaner system for all production.

 

E G Jensz

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I’m not Buying – Another Rant

We are constantly bombarded by advertising for stuff we neither want or need and one of my pet hates is those advertisements that yell at me. You know the ones. The Retravision Ads, the Harvey Norman Ads, and many car parts and Car sales ads where the moron who is doing the voice over is yelling instead of calmly telling us the message. I simply turn off the sound when these ads come on and I make a point of  NOT buying from the offending companies.

 

The reason for advertising is to get a message across, but also not to annoy or appear to intimidate the buying public so when are these morons going to learn? Gerry Harvey is quick to blame everyone else for his lack of sales but his advertising strategy has back-fired and the buying public can see through him because he cries poor as he arrives to the press conference in his flash car and wearing his flash suit and then he goes home to his cliff-top mansion that has a “view to die for”.

 

The others are the same, loud and aggressive, and to be honest they can keep their crap because I’m not buying.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left Politics

User Pays: An Economic Principal or A Repudiation of Responsibility

 

Introduction

During the late twentieth and into the early twenty first century governments have introduced “user pays” systems for services which once were considered a government responsibility and the provision of a common good. The services which have been so affected include, but are not limited to, access to cultural events, venues for the arts, such as public galleries and museums, parking in National Parks, parking at beaches, toll roads, access to tuition free further education and much more. Many of these facilities were once free to access for the ordinary citizen with taxes funding these things as a public service and a public good. Other government facilities and utilities also were relinquished to profit making enterprises which made these available but more expensive. So what has happened?

Car Parks, Trains, ‘Planes

Governments have decided, in their finite wisdom one may venture, that these facilities are no longer a government responsibility. How government came to this conclusion it is difficult to say but one could suggest that the rationalist economists in their midst decided that if they didn’t want to go to National Parks or free orchestral concerts at lunchtime or visit the beach or go to galleries and museums why should “their” taxes be paying for it and therefore let the user pay.

This ideology then extended to the provision of roads, bridges, car parks and other infrastructure where it became the norm for governments to decide that a road should be built but after the decision to build was made they would then give a private contractor the job and give the same contractor or another business the right to collect the tolls to pay for it.

The rationalists would then say that those who wanted the road, bridge or other former public utility or facility would be paying directly for it. Therefore governments had repudiated their responsibility to provide public services and goods.

What then would governments do now except make laws and establish large bureaucracies which had the task of operating a government that was providing less and less services. The monstrous bureaucracy, however, was not getting smaller, despite their diminishing tasks, but larger.

Governments did not only stop providing utilities and infrastructure through the taxation system they also dispensed with much of their capital investment by selling former government owned enterprises and utilities. This meant that the government of the day could “balance” their budgets but their stocks were sold with no further return possible. They effectively killed the cash cow. Trains and their operating systems were sold, the government operated airlines were “privatised”, the government telecommunications provider was put up for sale and sold to private investors, and all this was done to balance the books rather than make provision for a public good into the future. Governments decided that “private entrepreneurs” would better manage and provide a more cost effective service for the utilities and corporations thus sold.

Railways were closed and services which were once cross-subsidised through the idea of provision of a public good suddenly disappeared from the rail systems. Airfares rose and continued to rise whilst services were ceased throughout the country and the telecommunications system became more and more expensive.

Power, Gas, Water

Utilities were sold and the result was an increase in the cost of electricity, gas and water to an amount above the annual inflation rate. The utilities which we had become used to using and added to our comfort and to our sanitation became an impost which was beyond the easy budget of many on low incomes. These costs, as they rose, meant many in cold climates could ill afford to heat their homes and those in warmer climates are afraid of the costs if they turn on an air-conditioner.

These public goods were now part of a business which would rationalise its services to such an extent that, despite mandatory service guarantees, would lead to infrastructure failure because the new business model did not include proper preventative maintenance systems. This can be shown by the frequency of power outages in various parts of the country due to old infrastructure which has not been properly maintained and which is only ever patched up at best.

Water main failures, an insignificant problem previously, have become almost epidemic in proportion in some areas because the new “corporations” simply do not renew old infrastructure on a regular maintenance cycle.

The provision of new infrastructure, such as access to mains gas, is now only occurring when local communities with perceived political power make their representatives nervous about their re-election. Common good principles simply do not apply in the new business models which are profit driven rather than the previous model of the common weal when governments still took their responsibilities for public good seriously.

and Education

Tertiary education was made more expensive to the exclusion of all but the rich. Some lower socio-economic students have been lucky enough to secure scholarships but on the whole it is a struggle with those students without large cash reserves to tap needing to work long hours whilst they study. This leads to many students dropping out of their studies due to burn-out. The free tuition style tertiary education system introduced in the 1970’s to allow the lower socio-economic students access to tertiary education has therefore been replaced with a user pays system which is a disincentive to even the most gifted student if they do not have ready access to the money for the fees.

Primary and secondary schools were closed or “rationalised” which has meant that some students have to travel long distances for the most basic of education. One wonders if this application of difficulties of access to education is a direct attempt to keep the country poorly educated and therefore more able to be exploited. It may sound like a conspiracy theorist at work to say such things but previously education was taken seriously as a means to better prepare our young for their lives in business and industry.

Who will fix my water leak?

The answer to the question above is who knows? The education system once prepared students, through technical education, to enter apprenticeships and then on to the trades and the professions of which today we have a paucity. Is this a direct result of the rationalisation of education?

When the responsibility for educating tradespeople was taken from the workplaces into a “user pays” system in colleges the number of assisted apprentices dropped off alarmingly and tradespeople no longer felt the need to support those who wished to follow them into trades. Apprenticeships became less and less available. As we came into the twenty first century immigration instead of education became the call by businesses which no longer felt they had a responsibility to educate apprentices in their trades.

Here it was not only governments which had repudiated responsibility for a public good, that is the education of the future tradespeople, but so had business abdicated their former responsibilities which one could properly suggest was a direct result of government failure in the education of those who wanted to pursue trades. Business was copying the government in its refusal to properly prepare the next generation of plumbers, carpenters, boilermakers and other tradespeople.

Conclusion

In a country where we have a wealth of natural resources and an economy which has become the envy of the world we have failed the future. Our infrastructure has been given to the lowest bidder to build and then those solid elements of our former infrastructure have been sold to balance budgets.

We insist that the “user pays” for everything possible which then means that we lack services to the more remote or difficult to service areas. Country towns are severed from affordable public transport systems and the former balancing of public good through cross subsidisation has been ceased as unprofitable. This has had the result of isolating people in towns that are dying due to a lack of accessible services.

Education has become an expense for those who can least afford it and the brightest students from the lower socio-economic classes are being priced out of further and tertiary education whilst their younger siblings are spending more time travelling to and from school because the nearest school is now no longer walking distance away.

Infrastructure for utilities is being seriously compromised by businesses who would rather pay the service guarantee failure bonus to customers than to repair and maintain the infrastructure. There is no longer a common good notion in the provision of services and infrastructure just a new business model that puts profit ahead of any other consideration.

Everything that can be “privatised” is being privatised without regard for history. If governments and their operatives would just look back on history they would know that many of those things which we are now returning to private enterprise were indeed once private enterprises but they came into public hands because private enterprise could not make a profit from it and could not afford the extensive infrastructure required to create systems that were accessible to all communities. Governments took on these enterprises to provide a public good.

Private enterprise has retaken control of these enterprises and have stripped back services, as in the railway service closures, to make them pay and fail to provide a universal service. Many private enterprises have taken over utilities and the infrastructure has been allowed to become unserviceable or in a poor state of repair whilst the enterprise continues paying their executives huge salaries which do not reflect the return on investment which one would suggest should be the major criterion when establishing an appropriate salary.

User pays systems have made former access to National Parks, arts establishments and, to some extent, beaches an elitist pursuit for those who have the financial resources to attend. Free classical music concerts are virtually a thing of the past and access to other exhibitions and shows have become prohibitively expensive without government subsidy.

User pays systems have also put further education out of the reach of many and this means that a ruling class mentality has returned to higher education, where the wealthy elite turn out copies of themselves complete with a Right wing political bias.

Some governments have implemented access and equity programmes to give access to facilities which were formerly open to all, however, conservative governments have almost invariably reduced funding for these programmes which has left the disadvantaged in limbo between Right and Left wing periods of government. Equity and access then becomes a matter of cost consciousness for governments with little chance that those disadvantaged by user pays systems will have full and unhindered access because of rational economics.

What the rationalists don’t consider is that a valuable resource, our human capital to use their term, is allowed to wallow in ignorance and the continuing problem of access to education means that we now have a shortage of trained workers in a large number of trades and professions. Allowing immigration to resolve the problem is only a stop gap measure because there still needs to be people with the requisite skills to fill the positions once those immigrant workers who are currently occupying them retire. It is short-sighted to reduce education when all our social, academic, political, industrial and service sectors will need skilled tradespeople and professionals into the future. We have failed to future proof our society.

User pays systems only serve to exclude those without the monetary ability to access the goods and services available and therefore are elitist systems with no true public good or common weal inherent in the systems. Such exclusive elitist systems are not a part of a truly egalitarian society and it saddens to see this ideal wilt.

E G Jensz

Feedback is sought for this and all other posts here. I relish debate but I will not tolerate abuse. My writing has a left wing slant so if that doesn’t suit you create your own blog.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized