200 Schools Worse off in New Scheme

An article by the Sydney Morning Herald, "200 schools worse off in new scheme"

demonstrates how funding for the Gonksi scheme will result in a large number of public

schools, many in low socio-economic areas, will receive considerably less amounts of

funding next year. This issue will most likely occur, despite an overall approximate of an

extra $100 million increase in funding to the sector and gains at most schools. This

appears to be of great concern, especially if public schools within lower socioeconomic

areas are receiving less funding than usual, and may be justified when Johnson (1999)

states, "The more money earned by the parents in a school district, the more money the

district spends per pupil... It is widely known that schools serving low-income students tend

to attract teachers with less training and experience". However, the loadings are greatly

assisting the needs of Aboriginal students and individual disadvantaged students, which

each individual student falling under either of these two categories attracting funding for

their school. It is essential that these loadings are reviewed properly and fundings are

equally distributed, in order to achieve a greater level of distributive justice throughout

Australia's education system.

Another rather debatable implementation as a result of the Gonski review mentioned within

the article is the government's new Resource Allocation Model, where schools will receive

a base school allocation, plus a separate equity loading. Funding for these loadings for

students from low socio-economic backgrounds will be calculated using a new method

called the Family Occupation and Education index, taking into account parent's highest

level of school education, non-school qualifications and their occupation. Whilst this does

appear to be an equitable method when considering socially just distributions of resources,

I believe that there are many other factors that could determine how disadvantaged a

particular family would be, such as geographic location (rural areas in particular where

long distances must be travelled), whether or not English is a families first spoken

language, any forms of disabilities/handicaps present within a family and many more. This

is a serious issue within Australia, as the nation is very successful in high-achieveing

results but lacks serious commitment to equity. Vickers (2005) asserts this important need

for equity, after analysing the low equity results of Australia's 2000 and 2003 PISA results

"Australia's students should place us among the 'best' nations on standardised tests, but at

the same time, our distribution of scores should show a relatively narrow spread around

the mean". Even when reviewing the most recent 2009 PISA results, Australia still has not

achieved the high equity levels that the nation is aiming for (Thomson, et al., 2010).

Therefore, it is clearly evident that Australia is making some form of approach to achieve a

greater level of equity for students, especially those of lower socio-economic status.

However, it appears that there are still some initiatives that are not benefitting everyone,

such as the 200 public schools which are receiving less funding than most others. If

Australia is to truly achieve this goal of greater equity, then it is essential that we consider

an improved level of equal distributive justice throughout all schools, especially those

which are found in lower socio-economic regions.

References

Johnson, S. T. (1999). Whose money is it? The Journal of Negro Education, 68(2), !

127-129. 

Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., Nicholas, M., Hillman, K., & Buckley, S. (2010). PISA in Brief.!

Highlights From the Full Australian Report: Challenges for Australian Education: !

Results from PISA 2009. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Retrieved on 4/9/2013 from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PISA-2009-In-

Brief.pdf

Vickers, M. (2005). In the common good: The need for a new approach to funding 

Australia's schools. Educational Pedagogies, Policies and Politics, 49(3), 264-277.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/-2vz9n.html