Schools: Don't mention the . . . public vs private
by Chris BonnorOne of the great education buzz phrases of recent years is "seamless transition". We do a lot of seamless transiting in schools, but it is also an appropriate phrase to describe how education policy has evolved from Howard to Rudd. Once you get past the education revolution you have to work really hard to see the policy differences. Yet there are some differences. While the Howard government often talked down public education the Rudd Government prefers not to talk about it.
Manacled by caution, inspired by Blair and almost certainly directed by Rudd, Julia Gillard is seeking a "third way" solution to avoid dealing with the public/private divide fuelled by Howard and at least by three of his education ministers.
The problems she won't deal with are obvious. Equity is on her agenda, but she skips over some fundamental problems, including the very way that public and private schools operate in this country. It is this framework, with its different rules, funding sources and sets of obligations - that creates the problems of access and equity about which she professes to be concerned.
We're all the same . . .
Much of Julia Gillard's rhetoric is familiar. If we get excited about such fundamental issues we are told that "it's time we got beyond the public versus private divide that has blighted our education debates for so long". [1] This is a time-honoured way, well established by the Howard Government, of suppressing debate, ranking up there with "politics of envy" and variations of "mission accomplished".
Referring to government and private schools in her John Button Memorial Lecture she stressed that "there are schools that struggle with limited resources trying to serve disadvantaged communities in both groups". [2] Maybe so: but as Barbara Preston shows, 40% of government school students are in low income families. The figure for Catholic schools is 25% and for other private schools is 22%.[3] And that is just averages - the differences are very stark in some communities. Eventually the Rudd Government will discover that it isn't enough to declare such concerns off-limits in the hope that the mounting problems in our publicprivate framework will just go away. Even The Age editorialised to this effect in mid-July, calling on Julia Gillard to address real problems in the balance between government and private schools.[4]
The more serious problem is that, if her public statements are any guide, Julia Gillard's comments indicate a serious lack of understanding of the role played by one of these systems - the universal, inclusive, free and secular public schools - in creating middle class democracy, social stability and economic growth in this and equivalent countries. Public schools don't just form another sector; they are an integral part of what we are as a society and nation. To believe this is not to take any "side" in a debate. Nor does it indemnify public schools from any reforms which will demonstrably improve education. What it does mean is that you can't diminish its size, distinctiveness and effectiveness without serious individual and collective consequences. In not understanding this, Julia Gillard is hardly on her own on the front bench of the Rudd Government.
. . . So let's be friends. . . .
Along with the rhetoric both Gillard and Rudd have left a trail of clues to indicate what life for schools might be like after the revolution. Apart from her keynote speeches these clues were found in the 2020 Summit in Canberra in April and the Federal budget in May. While many good ideas emerged from the 2020 Summit, school education was really only considered in the context of productivity. Many critical issues weren't even on the table, or if they managed to get that far, were airbrushed away or consigned to minor billing. The divides between schools certainly fall into this category. Buried at the bottom of page 19 of the final Canberra Summit report is this statement "Some argue that the fragmentation of schooling arising from funding policies inhibits social inclusion and exacerbates social divides."[5]
Instead of grappling with such concerns the Rudd Summit devoted considerable energy to steering public policy in all manner of areas towards its own agendas. In education this meant asking questions such as: What should the "public commitment" to education be? Can "public" education only be delivered through "public" schools?
Amongst the outcomes of the Summit was an idea to "Overcome the public-private divide in education by, for example, funding students according to need and encouraging more private investment." "What a surprise! Not only that, funding students according to need rather than funding schools neatly denies the rationale behind public education as a sector and ignores the whole community-building role of schools."
The Summit was followed by the federal budget which provided $62.5 million over four years for 25 pilot projects across Australia to build facilities that will be shared between government and nongovernment schools. By August public and private schools were being invited to get together to submit projects for this funding
. . . . and live under the one roof.
One of the reasons Gillard seeks to blur the distinction between sectors is that eventually she wants to drag schools into some form of integrated school framework. This would see your local Catholic and Anglican schools become state schools, probably fully-funded in exchange for certain trade-offs, as is common overseas.
To make any progress the Rudd Government needs to test the wind and trial an integrated model. The most fertile ground to do this is Victoria, the venue for a study on integration by Allen Consulting and a number of background papers by various organisations including the Education Foundation and DEMOS. So in the shadow of the Summit along came a little announcement from Bronwyn Pike, Victoria's education minister, only reported in The Age, in which she said she wanted to explore how the public system could forge stronger "partnerships" with Catholic schools to improve areas such as school infrastructure and maintenance, student welfare and possibly even funding.[6] The only published reaction came from the Victorian Catholic Education Office which said that they didn't want state control.
Integrated systems look good on paper but the reality on the ground is often different. Previous private schools which belong to such systems often bend the rules to enrol an already advantaged population, thus sustaining the social differences between them and secular state schools. Private schools in this country have far too many advantages, especially over enrolments, to want to live under the (often deficient) regulatory regime of an integrated system. If they are cajoled down this road they'll almost certainly insist on maintaining privileges not available to public providers. The tortuous road towards funding private schools in Australia is littered with special deals and exemptions. It would be the same in any negotiations towards an integrated system.
Tackling the hard questions
The reaction of public educators to all this has been varied. Long-time defenders of public education have sounded familiar and recycled warnings while Gillard's machinations have given oxygen to those who have long wanted to redefine what public education is and how it should look in the future. To help throw light on all these perspectives I joined with others to organise an alternative school education summit in late June. The event was strongly supported, reflecting widespread disappointment with the agenda and outcomes of the 2020 Summit in Canberra.
The participants represented quite a broad spectrum of opinion makers committed to public education. The focus of the Summit was on the public good and the education of children. The program was built around three key questions which didn't seem to rate in Canberra:
- How do we ensure that governments place the needs of children for a quality education first among all other priorities?
- How can the provision and resourcing of schooling reduce, rather than accentuate, resource and opportunity gaps between children, schools and communities? How can schools reinforce social inclusiveness, harmony and the development of strong social capital in every community?
- What should be essential in the role, character and provision of public education? What role should private schooling play and what arrangements might support this role?
In a sense the Summit agenda reflected what Miriam Lyons, Director of the Centre for Policy Development, calls "stepping stone" ideas and concepts, an attempt to reframe the debate to get the upper hand. There are considerable benefits as well as some costs of such approaches. The report issued after the Summit is available at http://thestupidcountry.com/wp-content/ uploads/2008/09/school-education-summit-june- 2008.pdf
Speaker after speaker painted a picture of a growing nightmare in the way Australia provides and resources its schools. We heard about a litany of lost opportunities for our kids, our communities and the nation. The summit represented a timely stocktake of mounting problems in our framework of public and private schools but there was much more. For the first time we heard, from Adam Rorris, of the huge economic cost of not addressing equity in education. Jim McMorrow warned what would happen if we increase funding for public education without addressing the funding mechanisms. He revealed the amount of funding that slides across to private schools for every increase in funding to government schools.Trevor Cobbold unpacked the whole issue of choice and equity and Barbara Preston presented her alarming data on the resulting social differences between public and private schools. Lyndsay Connors analysed the whole scene with her unchallengeable logic.
A lively debate was generated by the whole question of what public schools should be and what role might exist for private schools in Australia. Alan Reid argued that being secular, free and inclusive are necessary but not sufficient conditions when thinking about education and the public good. Michael Furtado also advocated a broader view of public but John Kaye sounded warnings of the consequences if Australia continues to walk away from education that is universal, collective, rational and driven by values. The day was very powerful, highly evaluated and pointed the way to future action.
Those driving the June summit formed, as participants wanted, a loose coalition to promote or carry other activities and events. This group, the Future Education Forum, has established a simple online presence http://futuredforum.blogspot.com/ to disseminate information and news as it comes to hand.
Despite all this, recurring debates on educational issues continue to be far more about the popular than the profound. This was illustrated later in August when the Prime Minister unfolded his latest foray in the education revolution. He also wanted to grab the headlines and bury an impending critical paper on school funding written by Dr Jim McMorrow.[7] Rudd's performance at the National Press Club was put together at the last moment, but it certainly worked: the airwaves and columns were quickly filled with prattle about comparing schools and sacking principals. The McMorrow paper just joined a parade of damning indictments of illconceived policy.
But the big issues won't go away. McMorrow convincingly argues that in real terms and regardless of enrolments, public schools are going to be even more seriously disadvantaged if the Rudd government doesn't amend the Howard funding framework. If funding to private schools isn't pulled back to their entitled amounts then an extra $1.5 billion will be needed just for public schools to keep up.[8]
McMorrow isn't any ordinary critic. He is extremely measured, arguably conservative and well-credentialed in the ALP. His advice is timely: a looming hurdle for Rudd and Gillard is the required legislation for funding schools in the 2009-2012 period. Julia Gillard has promised to review the system for - wait for it - the 2013-2016 funding cycle. A Rudd government would have to be into a third term before any reform would even start to bite. Interestingly McMorrow gave a briefing to a very receptive number of the ALP federal caucus. Perhaps they believe that the time is right for the Labor heavies to be serious about evidence-based policy and to provide a long missing ingredient in education policy, namely courageous leadership. What cannot be underestimated over the coming months and years, and what needs to be celebrated, is the determination of public education advocates to tilt the balance in our schools back to supporting the common good in the education of our children. Arguably the era of education being just a private and positional good is drawing to a close. What we don't know is the shape and form of what is going to emerge.
Chris Bonnor, co-author (with Jane Caro) of The Stupid Country - How Australia is dismantling public education, UNSW Press, 2007.
There are a number of useful websites which address the themes included in this article:
http://futuredforum.blogspot.com/ includes links to many of these as well as links to outstanding resources and to media reports on these same themes.
Endnotes
[1] http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/gillard/releases/ speech.htm
[2] http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/john-button-memoriallecture- 20080717-3h1n.html
[3] http://thestupidcountry.com/wp-content/ uploads/2008/07/080628-public-education-summit-bpreston.ppt
[4] http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/were-stillwaiting- for-the-education-revolution-20080720-3i7v.html
[5] http://www.australia2020.gov.au/final_report/index.cfm)
[6] http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/state-seeks-closercatholic- school-ties/2008/04/20/1208629730841.html
[7] http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2008/ JMcMorrowpaper.pdf
[8] http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/funding-cuts-to-cost- 1000-teachers-union/2008/08/26/1219516472341.html?page=fu llpage#contentSwap1
Source: Australian Options, Issue 54, Spring 2008, pp. 20-3.