![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/2313473.jpg?348)
In response to Gonski and our future education needs we have heard only two responses from the Coalition - 'how will it be paid for?' (suggesting it is unaffordable) and the idea that teacher quality and principle autonomy are the only elements missing from our current education system. Pyne has even suggested that he wants to increase classroom size as this is not a contributing factor (in his opinion, based on cherry-picking research findings) to better educational outcomes.
What we haven't had are explicit statements about what this means in terms of actual policy.
Two writers have attempted to stare into the LNP tea leaves and predict what this means for public education.
Trevor Corbold (National Convenor of Save our Schools) wrote in issue 39 of Dissent magazine about the prospect of fees for public schools students, a position supported by Gerard Henderson (former Howard advisor), the Institute of Public Affairs (Liberal party think tank), the Centre for Independent studies (another Liberal think tank), Andrew Norton (former advisor to Howard Govt Education minister David Kemp), and the Grattan Institute (which includes David Kemp among its board of Directors).
An excerpt from his article 'Is free public education under threat?' is published below.
Means tested fees would undermine equal access for all to a quality education. This can be used to exclude those who do not pay, or to provide them with a lower quality of education. Some government schools could give priority to enrolling students of parents who are required to pay fees and exclude non-fee-paying, that is, poorer students. This would further stratify government schools into haves and have-nots, with the haves having more fee-paying families and so being better resourced and able to provide a higher quality education.
Those who have to pay are likely to demand better services because they pay. Those who pay could get first call on higher quality courses and teachers, while the rest would have to make do with second rate courses. Access to advanced courses could become even more a privilege for the well off than it is now.
Thus, the introduction of means tested fees would undermine the joint interest of all parents in advocating for a high-quality government school system for all. The outcome could be a two tier government education system – one serving the well off and one serving the less well off. In this way means tested fees would compound social inequity in education.
Free public education is necessary to ensure nondiscrimination and non-selectivity in access to high-quality school. It is needed to ensure that children cannot be excluded from a quality education for reasons of family background and low income. In a democracy, education outcomes should not depend on family background, wealth and ability to pay.
The full article is available in Dissent magazine. Annual Subscriptions are available through their website.
![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/4146353.jpg?306)
In relation to the outsourcing of public education, some see this as a slippery slope which may herald the emergence of 'For Profit' schools in Australia.
Annette Rome and Adam Smith authored an article titled Do we want for-profit schools in Australia? It was published on the website the Conversation on 24/12/12. Selected excerpts are published below.
The full article can be found here
Do we want for-profit schools in Australia?
For-profit education is something that really doesn’t exist in Australia… yet. But in many other countries around the world it has become a normal part of education and there are now many companies providing a range of educational products.
One of these, for example, offers a “platinum-style” education costing up to $US100,000 or so, all the way down to a cheaper “basic model”. This company aims to cater for five million students by 2024 and may offer its shares to the public to fund further expansion.
The idea behind many of these companies is to fill a gap, providing cut price education relative to the established private schools in countries such as the United Kingdom. But these groups are also now considering heading our way.
Shift in thinking
If we see education as reflecting the societal goals of the host culture, then a certain schooling product is envisaged. If the goal is one of profit, where a subset of the citizenry is advantaged, then a different paradigm will exist.
At present, there is a move towards greater school and community partnerships, and indeed this is a federal government imperative. If the $5 billion dollar education funding boost estimated by the Gonski review is right and the government is unwilling or unable to provide this, then one response might be to outsource provision to private providers.
The best and the worst
Whether there is room here for increased involvement with profit-focused organisations raises a number of issues. One would have to ask why they are needed. What niche is there to fill in Australia? It is difficult to see here exactly for what problem “private, for-profit public (or independent) schools” are designed to be the answer.
Organisations that operate in the area of accreditation for schools around the world talk of for-profit schools being “some of the best and some of the worst”. Considering that the bulk of a school’s expenses in Australia arise from teacher salaries, one can only imagine that savings might come from cutting corners in this area. Certainly, experiences in South East Asia, where the for-profit schools are becoming more common, would suggest this is so.
Given that staff quality has been identified as the single most important factor over which schools have some control this may influence educational outcomes for children.
Similarly the regulation of crucial areas such as curriculum and assessment regimes can be problematic, if private operators favour certain approaches over national or local contexts.
What next?
The area of for-profit education requires careful consideration.
Families compelled by law to send their children to school would have every right to feel very wary of having them passed by government into the care of a contracted profit-making individual, corporation or community group not of the parents’ own choosing.
This is a discussion we need to have
It does seem, however, that the Coalition aren't willing to publicly back such ideas (despite the tick of approval from the IPA and the CIS). As with every other policy position (which will be released just before the election), they would rather drift into government and then impose their will on an unsuspecting public. Once elected, Coalition governments assign their ideas (no matter how hair-brained) into one of two categories... Mandate or Non-Core promise... in other words, they do as they please.
If these are policy considerations for the Coalition, they need to start the public discussion now... but will they? Their track record suggests otherwise.