Australian Financial Review, Australia
31 Jul 2013, by Scott Prasser
General News, page 43 - 322.00 cm²
National - circulation 64,861 (MTWTFS)
Copyright Agency Ltd (CAL)
licensed copy
ID 00206002045
PAGE 1 of 2
School funding follows bazaar policy process
Debate about
what used to
be called the
Gonski review
has been lost
in pseudo
consultation tactics that
undermine
open and
informed
discussion.
Passer
Another self-imposed Commonwealth
government deadline passes, further
extensions are granted, headlines appear
suggesting the remaining states are about
to strike a deal, yet still the Commonwealth
has failed to get all states and territories on
board with the no-longer-Gonski, Better
Schools new school funding
arrangements.
Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia
and the Northern Territory are still not
buying - or more accurately, are not yet
agreeing to be bought with promises of
extra dollars that have enticed other
governments to succumb. And as for the
non-government sector, their agreement is
not at issue, given the rushed Australian
Education Act 2013 binds them to the new
arrangements anyway - all the newly
appointed Education Minister, Bill Shorten
negotiated was a public statement of
acceptance!
Shorten tells us he "will continue
meaningful negotiations with remaining
states". Indeed, that's the problem. The
whole Gonski review process began in
April 2010 as a public inquiry with
"eminent Australians with a range of
expertise and capacity" to undertake a
"thorough and wide ranging" review that
would be "informed by data and evidence,"
carried out in an "inclusive way ... without
fear" to provide well-researched and viable
recommendations for future school
funding that would be "transparent, fair,
financially sustainable and effective in
promoting excellent educational
outcomes".
Professor Gary Banks of ANZSOG
recently stated that "well-targeted and
properly conducted public inquiries
provide a useful mechanism for
penetrating complexity and countering
asymmetric political pressures on
government," and are needed "given the
loss of policy analytic capability within the
public service ... [and] the erosion of
procedural protections".
Establishing the Gonski review as a
public inquiry also fitted with Kevin Rudd's
2008 proclamation that his government
would be driven by "robust, evidence based
policy-making processes", and "facts,
not fads".
Alas, however, the Gonski review fell
short of a good public inquiry. It failed to
address many key issues in Australian
schooling, to debunk funding myths,
clarify the facts and produce coherent,
implementable proposals. Far from
providing an evidence base for
policymakers on measures to improve
education performance for various groups
of students in various contexts, the report's
overwhelming focus was on money - more
money. Even then, it neglected important
parts of the funding equation, like the
realities of Australia's constitution and
federal-state relations.
Hence the messiness that has
characterised the Commonwealth's
subsequent handling of the policy process.
Genuine debate has been lost in pseudo
consultation - headlines at a thousand
paces, you show me your figures I'll show
you mine, endless photo shoots at schools,
a union-backed propaganda campaign and
taxpayer-funded media advertising. Such
tactics undermine open and informed
policy discussion in Australia, so needed to
restore the trust and legitimacy essential in
a well-functioning democracy.
Not only has good public
communication fallen victim to the
process, so too have the revitalised COAG
arrangements that Rudd hoped would
remove duplication in regulation and
service delivery, and end the argy-bargy of
typical federal negotiations. Instead, deals
have been reached by take-it-or-leave-it
ultimatums, threats, incomplete and
distorted data, and incentive funding.
Worst of all, there is now no policy
process. Policy based on open public
inquiry, expertise and independent
analysis has degenerated into policy by
negotiation, of the worst kind - bilateral
and back-room deals, special
arrangements for certain groups,
misinformation and an education package
that fails tests of transparency, fairness,
financial sustainability and effectiveness in
promoting excellent educational
Australian Financial Review, Australia
31 Jul 2013, by Scott Prasser
General News, page 43 - 322.00 cm²
National - circulation 64,861 (MTWTFS)
Copyright Agency Ltd (CAL)
licensed copy
ID 00206002045
Genuine debate has been
lost in photo shoots at
schools, a union-backed
propaganda campaign
and taxpayer-funded
media advertising.
PAGE 2 of 2
outcomes. The negotiation process is more
like the bargaining in a kasbah bazaar
where sealing the "deal" and scoring a
"win" is more important than the actual
product.
And the Commonwealth's priority has
not been about ensuring "every Australian
school is a great school and every
Australian child receives a world-class
education", as Shorten suggests, but rather,
on the eve of federal election, how a
political party in office since November
2007 finally gets one core policy promise
actually implemented.
Meanwhile the federal opposition has
been missing in action, unwilling or
unable to articulate a clear policy
framework except the trite statement that
"no school will be worse off' - the very
cause of the current funding distortions. It
has not provided a real policy alternative.
The only glimmer of hope is if the
Coalition wins government, there may be
another independent review of funding -a
second chance to use expertise and
evidence to drive policy.
So endeth the Gonski review. It was
born in the early optimism of the first
Rudd government. It sought to inject
informed debate into a sensitive policy
area, to make a difference to education
performance. It was sinking in the Gil lard
government's mismanagement. It is now
swamped by the political exigencies of the
second Rudd Labor government.
Scott Prasser is executive director of the
Public Policy Institute of the Australian
Catholic University.