Speech to Christian schools Australia national policy forum

Christian Schools Australia National Policy Forum

27 May, 2013, Canberra

Hon Christopher Pyne MP

Federal Member for Sturt

Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training

Manager of Opposition Business in the House

** CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY **

It’s a pleasure to be invited to address your conference once again.

It has been another extraordinary year. There is now less than four months until Australians go to polling booths on September 14 and cast their votes.

Australians know how important education is and they also will want to know that the promises being made to them are going to be kept.

If the Federal Coalition is fortunate enough to be elected to office, there is much that needs to be done.

Under Labor this seemingly never ending debate about school funding continues.

There is no doubt that funding is important. Governments must adequately resource and equip our nation’s schools.

Funding should always be directed to those students who need it the most.

But this obsessive, constant and myopic debate about school funding limits a much deeper and sophisticated debate about reforms that have the potential to truly transform education.

Of course school funding will need to be settled, one way or another, but I want the debate to move beyond this. Recently the Prime Minister said that a debate about school standards was a ‘distraction’[1]. For the parents of Australia improving the learning outcomes for their sons and daughters is their only concern.

That is why, if elected, the Coalition will focus on four main areas at the top of our agenda for school education.

1. We will relentlessly focus on reforms to improve teacher quality;
2. We will work with the States to introduce real principal and school autonomy into the Government schools system;
3. We will encourage more parental and community engagement; and
4. We will continue implementing a robust national curriculum.

At this time only one State has agreed to Labor’s new national funding model for schools.

As you would all know Labor’s deadline to achieve a national agreement is 30 June, so the Coalition will finalise our position on school funding after this date.

For it to work, any school funding system needs the support of every State and Territory.

We respect the views of the States and Territories. Just as we respect the views of the non-government schools sector.

Catholic schools sector authorities are also yet to enter into an agreement with the Government.

Independent schools, including member schools represented by Christian Schools Australia have been communicating their views about school funding to the Coalition on a regular basis.

All of these views will inform our final position in the lead up to the 30 June deadline.

In recent times we have seen the Prime Minister claim that non-government schools could expect to get up to $2.4 million dollars each in additional funding under the new funding package[2].

Like me, you may have noticed that the Prime Minister does not specify in what period of time schools should expect this funding.

Neither did she provide a breakdown of the funding amounts year by year in any of the statements, nor outline what each school can expect.

There is almost no detail available about the Government’s funding model for schools to examine. We are also still waiting for the legislation before the Parliament to be updated with new information.

However, the Government’s own Budget forecasts for the next four years are available. They have given us some clues about Labor’s plans for school funding.

Wayne Swan’s latest Budget delivered earlier this month revealed substantial cuts to education.

Across the entire education portfolio there is $4.7 billion less being spent overall in the four years to 2016 than what was budgeted last year.

Universities have had promises made to them by Labor in response to the Bradley Review into Higher Education broken. These promises were broken with funding supposedly being used to pay for their response to the Gonski Review.

The $2.3 billion dollar cut to higher education and student income support has been widely condemned. Even David Gonski has sought to distance himself from these cuts that rob Peter to pay Paul.

In school education just $2.8 billion of $9.8 billion promised in “new money” is actually in the Budget over the next four years.

At the same time the Government has announced that $2.1 billion in National Partnership funding will be re-directed into the new school funding package.

Labor has broken three election commitments made in 2010 by re-directing this funding. This includes the teacher bonus programme, the reward for the most improved schools programme and the school autonomy programme.

On top of the redirections for National Partnership funding, there is a billion dollars less in recurrent funding for non-government schools forecast over the next four years in comparison with the 2012-2013 Budget.

Overall there is about $325 million less set aside for school funding compared to this time last year.

As the New South Wales Catholic Education Commission pointed out last week:

“the bulk of the funds required for the new model are not scheduled for availability until 2018 and 2019; that is, up to three Federal elections away. Yet, the Budget provided no funding certainty for non-government schools for the 2014 school year. Given the absence of final data for schools, there is confusion and lack of clarity around several aspects: the transition from 2013 funding levels to 2019 levels; the impact of the changing and multiple levels of indexation on annual grants. Claims by the Prime Minister on 19 May that the average NSW non-government school would gain $800,000 from the new model was surprising and has only confused schools and created false expectations across NSW (and other States). This information needs to be clarified by the Government[3].”

The Independent Education Union which represents some 68,000 teachers in non-government schools is also asking the Government to urgently reveal on a school by school basis, what schools can be expected to receive in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

They suggest “Catholic and Independent employer associations continue to be frustrated by the lack of robustness and stability of the proposed models for funding distribution, the lack of certainty of funding caused by the relative size of the loadings compared with the base grant, unresolved data issues for special needs and the transitional arrangements”.

The National Education Reform Agreement also offers no further certainty on school funding.

It proposes that indexation arrangements would be subject to a Review in 2015, with new arrangements to be implemented in 2016[4].

The agreement suggests that precise methodology for the English as a Second Language and Students with disability loadings are yet to be developed in a nationally consistent way.

The low socio-economic status (SES) loading methodology will also be reviewed in 2015.

There is no certainty as to how recurrent base funding for non-government schools will be calculated into the future.

The National Education Reform Agreement with New South Wales suggests and I quote “The Commonwealth will review the socio-economic status (SES) score methodology by 2017 to ensure that this remains the most appropriate means of assessing the relative educational advantage of non-government schools, including their capacity to contribute”[5].

At Schedule H of this agreement capacity to contribute is defined as and again I quote “The anticipated level of private contribution will be based on a school’s SES score until a new, individual measure of parental capacity to contribute is developed”[6].

While Labor calls it the ‘individual parental capacity to contribute', we know it by its common name – a new means test.

We will oppose any changes that requires parents to reveal their individual income to an unspecified authority when enrolling their child at a non-government school from 2017.

The Coalition does not accept that the socio-economic status measure is broken, but we have suggested for many years it can be improved over time.

Many submissions into the Review confirmed that the socio-economic status measure is based on reliable and robust data, being the Australian Bureau of Statistics data that is not open to manipulation or inconsistency.

The Australian Parent’s Council have also highlighted:

“the possibility that the current model will be replaced by one that is very complicated and no more (indeed quite possibly less) transparent. The rolling over of recurrent funding and targeted funding into a national resourcing standard plus loadings across six years at the rate of one sixth per year (or whatever is eventually decided). This is likely to mean some schools will lose special needs funding in the short term and raises the question of how the Government may interpret the phrase, ‘no school will lose a dollar of funding’ as and if agreements are signed. APC does not support claims that the SES model has failed[7]”.

Should there be no national agreement and a Coalition Government is elected in September you no doubt will be wondering what we might do.

I can reassure you that an elected Coalition Government would take an alternative approach to the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Gonski Report that are consistent with our ten funding principles I outlined to this conference last year.

At this time, we envisage that our approach would involve several steps.

First we would negotiate with each State and Territory Government to seek a National agreement on school funding in a manner that is negotiated in good faith.

We would extend the existing recurrent funding model for both government and non-government schools, including targeted programmes, while this work was underway for at least a year or two in order to deliver immediate funding certainty to states and territories in addition to the non-government school sector. This means that no school could possibly be worse off in real terms.

Funding would be indexed according to the Average Cost of Educating a Government School Student (AGSRC).

Just on the issue of indexation.

The Gillard Government has been attempting to scare schools that should the AGSRC indexation method continue it would be fixed at 3% over the next six years, and they claim this would lead to a $16 billion dollar reduction in funding[8].

This wild claim goes against previous advice provided by the Federal Department of Education who have confirmed that the index goes up and down each year[9].

It also goes against advice provided in the Gonski report and I quote “AGSRC is a measure of historical expenditure levels in average government schools… based on past levels of inputs from governments[10]”.

The Government simply can’t predict that the AGSRC would stay at 3% over the next six years given the index itself is based on past input.

Schools also know that this index goes up and down each year depending on what the States spend, but the average of the last ten years has been 5.6%[11].

Let me give you another example to counter this scare campaign on indexation.

Last week the Premier in Tasmania announced that $83 million would be provided for schools over the next four years. The Premier also suggested that this funding will be spent even if there were to be no agreement reached with the Commonwealth on school funding[12].

It is very curious then, that Labor does not recognise that State Governments in recent times have committed to extra spending on schools.

It is clear Labor are focusing the impact of this index on one year only, rather than the longer-term impact once additional State contributions are injected simply to serve their own political agenda.

To finish on indexation, it’s worth noting that we have not closed the door to making improvements to indexation in the future.

Various proposals have been received on how the AGSRC could be improved over time.

We would also ensure that every State received its full entitlement under the current National Partnership agreements for school education and not a dollar less until these agreements come to the end.

Any agreement on a common ‘per student’ funding benchmark should take into account the fiscal capacity of each State and Territory and ensure that those Governments who have a history of strong schools investment are not punished while concurrently allowing others to reach a benchmark at and when their circumstances allow.

The Federal Coalition also argues that schools in the non-government sector must retain appropriate autonomy from the Commonwealth with respect to the management of their financial affairs.

I have also been speaking to schools around the country since the Review was handed down, and at each of these forums I have been suggesting that we are open to implementing in the future loadings that are ‘sector blind’.

This would provide additional support for both government and non-government schools that:

• Are located in regional and remote areas;
• Are small in size;
• Have a student cohort from a low socio economic status;
• Have an Indigenous student cohort;
• Have students with low English proficiency; and
• Have students with a Disability.

We would envisage that these loadings would replace the National Partnerships as they came to end.

This is not new Coalition policy. As you would all know by now, the Coalition has long held concerns about the way students with a disability are currently funded.

The current arrangements for students with a disability are inequitable and unfair.

You will recall I announced at your conference before the last election that we are committed to addressing this inequity.

Since the Gonski Report was released we have welcomed the Review’s recommendation to introduce sector-blind loadings for students with a disability.

It is consistent with our philosophy that funding for these students should be portable.

We argued in our submission to the Gonski Review that a sector-blind funding approach could be extended to other students facing disadvantage.

That is why we support the recommendations of the Gonski Report to introduce sector-blind loadings – given it is what we advocated.

However these would need to be implemented in a cooperative, careful and considered manner that reflects their intention as far as is practicable to ensure a funding model is achieved that is effective, viable and durable for the long term.

We want the non-government sector and States to be joint partners in developing appropriate methodology and costings for these loadings, which must be underpinned by robust and reliable data.

Parents around Australia instinctively know that outstanding teachers in the classroom lead to better outcomes for their children.

It is impossible to improve a school without investing in human capital.

With Australia’ slipping performance internationally, parents and educators are becoming increasingly worried and a sense of urgency is building.

Something needs to change.

In July last year I gave a speech to the Sydney Institute where I outlined that a Coalition Government would work with universities to improve pre service teacher training.

The evidence is telling us that students graduating from teacher training courses are feeling unprepared for employment.

Principals are also suggesting new teacher’s lack the practical skills that are necessary to teach effectively in the classroom.

The Federal Government is the major funder of universities. This is why I have identified the area of teacher training as the one a Federal Education Minister has the most capacity to effect change.

As you would all well know the Federal Government does not run any schools.

Nor does it employ a single teacher. Therefore the Federal Government’s direct reach into the classroom is limited.

A Federal Coalition Government would work in close collaboration with our universities so that the new graduates coming into your schools arrive well prepared, and well equipped to shape the minds of our next generation.

As a first step we would establish a ministerial advisory board to examine the world’s best teacher training courses that would inform how we improve standards here in Australia.

We will push for higher entry standards, and seek to improve mentoring arrangements for student teachers and new graduates.

However, schools need much more than just outstanding teachers.

Schools must be provided with appropriate autonomy and freedom over their operations.

It is no secret that we have seen a drift from government schools to non-government schools over the last thirty years in Australia.

The big question we need to ask is – why this is so?

It appears that the non-government sector offer a product to parents that they value. This explains why parents have increasingly chosen a non-government education.

Non-government schools are highly autonomous; they can make decisions locally and implement the practices, policies and procedures they want in their classrooms.

They have the right to hire the staff they best feel will meet the needs of their students.

They have freedom over curriculum focus, extracurricular activities and are able to create an academic environment that serves the needs of each student and the school as a whole.

Many government schools are not afforded this same freedom. I believe this lack of autonomy means that non-government schools are able to flexibly respond to parents when Government schools are not.

This is why enrolments in the Government school sector have been steadily declining.

Many government school Principals have not been fully encouraged to be creative or innovative, and are held captive by central bureaucracies.

State Government requirements often dictate what programmes they can run, what must be taught, what ICT equipment schools must use and the list goes on.

It seems ridiculous to me that Principals in this day and age are not trusted by State Governments to use their own professional judgment to manage the day to day affairs of the school.

Principals in the Government schools system in my home State of South Australia are afforded very little freedom.

A recent newsletter by the South Australian Association of State School Organisations entitled “Much ado about Gonski” made some excellent points and I quote directly from it:

“To listen to the Federal Government, teachers union or the media over the last year, you would think that Gonski is going to save education in Australia. Gonski is not a remedy to Australia’s declining education standards. It is simply a review to the way we fund our schools. Gonski also says the federal government should stop funding programmes and just give the money to the States. Giving the money to the State Departments is a bad idea. Computers in classrooms – meant to increase the ratio of laptops to students. But in South Australia, the State Government used the money to replace old computers in public schools. And the BER? A federal task-force recommended the programme be scrapped because of the mismanagement by the states and Territories. Finally, there’s the ‘administration costs’. The South Australian Association of State School Organisations and the principals associations have both calculated that as much as a third of funds are spent running the education department bureaucracy. Mr Gonski, give the money to the States and see just how much of the $8,000 and $10,000 per child actually makes it into the school. Give the money directly to the schools, managed by the Principal and overseen by the Governing Council[13]”.

I strongly support calls made such as these.

If elected the Coalition has already announced that we would work with the States to introduce genuine principal and school autonomy into the Government school system.

This has the potential to transform Government education, the way it is happening in Western Australia right now.

The Barnett Government has introduced what they call Independent Public Schools. These schools can select staff and manage their financial affairs though a one line budget.

They can set their own school development day dates, approve leave applications, determine the curriculum that best supports students’ needs, as well as manage their own utilities, repairs and ICT needs.

Some groups of Independent Public Schools work as a cluster. This enables them to effectively pool their resources and combine activities as to achieve economies of scale.

About a third of schools in Western Australia are now Independent Public Schools. The number of children in Western Australian Government schools has now surged.

In March this year the Australian Bureau of Statistics released figures showing public school enrolments rose by 3.6 per cent[14].

At the same time, non-government school enrolment grew by just 1.6 per cent.

This reverses the trend of non-government school numbers growing faster for the first time since 1977.

Western Australia’s incredible achievement suggests that parents want, and value principal and school autonomy.

Western Australia is putting non-government schools and Government schools on a more level playing field.

Labor likes to talk a lot about transparency and accountability. They say they support principal and school autonomy but they really only pay lip service to it.

Under a Coalition Government the future for schools will be bright. Schools will be given more freedom, and thus will be held accountable for whether their programmes result in the improvement of their students’ outcomes.

Occasionally solutions and approaches tried by schools might fail. But we must remind ourselves that this is part of life. The alterative of schools continuing to be stifled by Federal and State regulations and prescriptions means that schools won’t be allowed to make mistakes, nor learn from these mistakes to inform their new approaches to school improvement in the future.

This brings me to my next point, parental engagement. Levels of parental engagement can increase as a direct result of principal and school autonomy.

Evidence suggests that parental activities and parental expectation has an enormous effect with regard to student achievement.

Many recent submissions into the recent Senate Inquiry into Teaching and Learning have highlighted research by Professor John Hattie, Director of the Melbourne Education Research Institute.

He has conducted what is thought to be one the world’s largest meta-analysis studies in education. When comparing thousands of research studies, he found a very strong relationship between parent’s aspirations and student outcomes.

He suggests parents need to hold high aspirations and expectations for their children, and schools need to partner with parents so that the home and school can share these expectations and support learning[15].

I’ve visited many Independent Public schools now. I’ve seen first-hand the benefits of autonomy. It has allowed Principals to better spend their resources on strategies to fully engage with parents and bring them into the school community.

Having parent representation on the school’s governing council in Independent Public schools is just one way parents have a real say in decision-making processes and become engaged at the school level.

Principals running schools in low socio-economic areas in Perth have suggested to me that because they now have complete control of their funding, they are more able to put parental engagement at the centre of their approach to running the school in a way that they hadn’t been able to do before but want to.

Examples of parental engagement strategies I’ve seen in some of the toughest areas of Western Australia include holding parents’ workshops, running employment programmes for unemployed parents, teaching parents about health and wellbeing, using parents to organise and help with school excursions and other activities and providing a free breakfast to parents who can’t read if they participated in literacy and numeracy programmes.

Because if a parent can’t read then it is impossible for them to assist their children to practise at home.

School attendance and student outcomes will only improve if parents feel that they are part of school life and acknowledge a shared responsibility for their child’s learning.

I am determined that whatever promises I make to the schools sector, I will be able to keep.

Should no National agreement be reached on Labor’s proposal, then under the Coalition’s plan, all schools would receive at least the same quantum of funds they get now, indexed each year to meet rising costs.

We can aim to improve funding arrangements in the future, but promises have to be affordable, believable and achievable.

In the end our focus will be getting on with the evidence-based areas known to be linked to improved student achievement. Because in the end these are the reforms that will impact on student achievement the most.