Source: http://docplayer.net/10328390-Assessing-existing-funding-models-for-schooling-in-australia-department-of-education-employment-and-workplace-relations.html
Timestamp: 2019-03-24 12:51:07
Document Index: 603870923

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 6', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2']

Assessing existing funding models for schooling in Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations - PDF
Download "Assessing existing funding models for schooling in Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations"
Juliet Frederica McDonald
1 Assessing existing funding models for schooling in Australia Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations June 2011
2 Limitation of our work General use restriction This report is prepared solely for the use of the Review of Funding for Schooling Panel (the Panel). This report is not intended to and should not be used or relied upon by anyone else and we accept no duty of care to any other person or entity. The report has been prepared for the purpose of the Panel. The findings, analysis and conclusions expressed in the report are ours and do not necessarily reflect the views or have the endorsement of the Panel. You should not refer to or use our name or the advice for any other purpose. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms Pty Ltd
3 Contents Executive Summary... i 1 Introduction Background Schooling in Australia Funding framework Conclusions Funding models and educational outcomes How does funding model design influence educational outcomes? Broader systemic context Implications for this analysis Funding model assessment framework Assessment framework Prioritisation Funding model characteristics Overview of funding models Consolidation of funding models Assessment of funding models ary public funder models Supplementary public funder models Interaction between funding models Lessons for future funding architecture References Appendix A : List of consultation participants Appendix B : Education sector characteristics by jurisdiction Appendix C : Commonwealth tax concessions for schooling Appendix D : School funding assessment technical appendix Appendix E : School funding assessment case study appendix Charts Chart 2.1 : Student enrolments by sector, Chart 2.2 : Student enrolments by school type, 2009 and Chart 2.3 : Student/school characteristics by ATSI, ICSEA & remoteness, 2009 & Chart 2.4 : Year 3 NAPLAN numeracy and reading mean scores, Chart 2.5 : Year 9 NAPLAN numeracy and reading mean scores,
4 Chart 2.6 : Student attendance rates, 2009 (%) Chart 2.7 : Year 12 (or equivalent) attainment, persons aged years, 2010 (%) Chart 2.8 : Proportion of recurrent income by funding source, Chart 2.9 : Proportion of capital expenditure by funding source, Chart 2.10 : Total recurrent and capital funding proportions, Chart 6.1 : Proportion of in-school expenditure by gov. education systems, Chart D.1 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, gov. schools, ACT Chart D.2 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, gov. schools, NSW Chart D.3 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, gov. schools, NT Chart D.4 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, gov. schools, QLD Chart D.5 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, gov. schools, SA Chart D.6 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, gov. schools, TAS Chart D.7 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, gov. schools, VIC Chart D.8 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, gov. schools, WA Chart D.9 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, non-gov. schools, ACT Chart D.10 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, non-gov. schools, NSW Chart D.11 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, non-gov. schools, NT Chart D.12 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, non-gov. schools, QLD Chart D.13 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, non-gov. schools, SA Chart D.14 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, non-gov. schools, TAS Chart D.15 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, non-gov. schools, VIC Chart D.16 : Recurrent income per student by ICSEA score, non-gov. schools, WA Chart D.17 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, gov. schools, ACT Chart D.18 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, gov. schools, NSW Chart D.19 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, gov. schools, NT Chart D.20 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, gov. schools, QLD Chart D.21 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, gov. schools, SA Chart D.22 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, gov. schools, TAS Chart D.23 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, gov. schools, VIC Chart D.24 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, gov. schools, WA Chart D.25 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, non-gov. schools, ACT Chart D.26 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, non-gov. schools, NSW Chart D.27 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, non-gov. schools, NT Chart D.28 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, non-gov. schools, QLD
5 Chart D.29 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, non-gov. schools, SA Chart D.30 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, non-gov. schools, TAS Chart D.31 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, non-gov. schools, VIC Chart D.32 : Recurrent income per student by ATSI enrolments, non-gov. schools, WA Chart D.33 : Recurrent income per student by school region, gov. schools, ACT Chart D.34 : Recurrent income per student by school region, gov. schools, NSW Chart D.35 : Recurrent income per student by school region, gov. schools, NT Chart D.36 : Recurrent income per student by school region, gov. schools, QLD Chart D.37 : Recurrent income per student by school region, gov. schools, SA Chart D.38 : Recurrent income per student by school region, gov. schools, TAS Chart D.39 : Recurrent income per student by school region, gov. schools, VIC Chart D.40 : Recurrent income per student by school region, gov. schools, WA Chart D.41 : Recurrent income per student by school region, non-gov. schools, ACT Chart D.42 : Recurrent income per student by school region, non-gov. schools, NSW Chart D.43 : Recurrent income per student by school region, non-gov. schools, NT Chart D.44 : Recurrent income per student by school region, non-gov. schools, QLD Chart D.45 : Recurrent income per student by school region, non-gov. schools, SA Chart D.46 : Recurrent income per student by school region, non-gov. schools, TAS Chart D.47 : Recurrent income per student by school region, non-gov. schools, VIC Chart D.48 : Recurrent income per student by school region, non-gov. schools, WA Chart D.49 : Recurrent income per student by school size, gov. schools, ACT Chart D.50 : Recurrent income per student by school size, gov. schools, NSW Chart D.51 : Recurrent income per student by school size, gov. schools, NT Chart D.52 : Recurrent income per student by school size, gov. schools, QLD Chart D.53 : Recurrent income per student by school size, gov. schools, SA Chart D.54 : Recurrent income per student by school size, gov. schools, TAS Chart D.55 : Recurrent income per student by school size, gov. schools, VIC Chart D.56 : Recurrent income per student by school size, gov. schools, WA Chart D.57 : Recurrent income per student by school size, non-gov. schools, ACT Chart D.58 : Recurrent income per student by school size, non-gov. schools, NSW Chart D.59 : Recurrent income per student by school size, non-gov. schools, NT Chart D.60 : Recurrent income per student by school size, non-gov. schools, QLD Chart D.61 : Recurrent income per student by school size, non-gov. schools, SA Chart D.62 : Recurrent income per student by school size, non-gov. schools, TAS
6 Chart D.63 : Recurrent income per student by school size, non-gov. schools, VIC Chart D.64 : Recurrent income per student by school size, non-gov. schools, WA Chart D.65 : Cost relativities across Victorian government schools Chart D.66 : Stages of Learning weightings Tables Table 2.1 : Level of recurrent income by funding source, 2009 ($b) Table 2.2 : Level of capital expenditure by funding source, 2009 ($m) Table 4.1 : Funding model assessment principles and indicators Table 5.1 : State/territory funding models for government schools Table 5.2 : Autonomy in state/territory funding models for government schools Table 5.3 : State/territory funding models for non-government schools Table B.1 : New South Wales school education characteristics, Table B.2 : Victoria s school education characteristics, Table B.3 : Queensland s school education characteristics, Table B.4 : Western Australia s school education characteristics, Table B.5 : South Australia s school education characteristics, Table B.6 : Tasmania s school education characteristics, Table B.7 : Australian Capital Territory s school education characteristics, Table B.8 : Northern Territory s school education characteristics, Table C.1 : Estimates of Commonwealth tax concessions Table D.2 : Occupational categories/weightings used in calculation of SFO funding, VIC Table D.3 : Predicting year 5 student achievement, VIC Figures Figure 3.1 : Impacts and determinants of student outcomes... 30
7 Glossary ATSI ABS ACER ACARA AGSRC BER CCD COPE COAG DGR DEEWR EMA ERI ESL FAM FBT FTE GST IEA IPS ICSEA LBOTE LSAY MCEECDYA NAPLAN NEA NP OECD PISA SEIFA Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Council for Education Research Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Average Government School Recurrent Costs Building the Education Revolution Census Collection District Commonwealth Own Purpose Expense Council of Australian Governments Deductible gift recipient Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Education Maintenance Allowance Education Resource Index English as a second language Financial Assistance Model Fringe benefits tax Full-time equivalent Goods and services tax International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Independent Public School Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage Language Background Other Than English Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy National Education Agreement National Partnership Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Programme for International Student Assessment Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas
8 SES SPP SFO SWD Socio-economic status ific purpose payments Student family occupation Students with disability
9 Executive Summary The overarching objective of Australia s schooling system is to deliver a high quality education for Australian students, that leads to high quality student outcomes. The benefits of high quality student outcomes are wide-ranging and well established. A myriad of factors interact to determine the performance of schooling systems and, therefore, the extent to which the goal of delivering high quality education is achieved. Among these factors is government funding and the means and mechanisms by which it is allocated across and within schools that is, funding model design (as distinct from the level of funding). However, the impact of funding model design on the performance of schooling systems is heavily influenced by the complex policy and regulatory environment which governs activity in the schooling system, as well as a range of external factors (such as student background). Nevertheless, adequate, appropriately allocated funding underwrites the capacity of school systems to deliver high quality education programs. Well crafted funding models can support and indeed shape the system toward optimal operation. At the same time, poorly designed funding models compromise the education system s capacity to deliver high quality education, particularly to students with greatest need (such as students from an Indigenous background, students in remote locations and students from a low SES background). Optimally designed funding models are a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating an educational environment conducive to achieving high quality student outcomes. The relationship between funding model design and educational outcomes While the evidence relating the design of funding models directly to student outcomes is weak, many of the factors which have been demonstrated as among the most significant determinants of student outcomes can at varying levels be influenced by funding model design. Most notable among these are: Teacher quality. While many of the determinants of teacher quality are outside the direct realm of funding model influence (e.g. the quality of training and graduates), funding nevertheless has a potential role to play in (i) rewarding high calibre teachers; (ii) shaping the allocation of teachers across and within schools; and (iii) increasing teacher quality over time (i.e. supporting professional development). Autonomy. Educational systems successful in improving student performance have progressively moved towards decentralised models of management. Decentralised funding models, or at the very least funding models that incorporate sufficient local information in the decision making process, are more conducive to strong educational outcomes. Socio-economic status. Social and economic disadvantage is a significant barrier to educational achievement and funding models play an important role in ensuring disadvantaged students have the additional resources they require to overcome these barriers. i
10 What constitutes optimal funding model architecture? In light of the role played by funding in facilitating student performance as well as the broader principles which have been identified as pertinent to funding model design, optimal funding model architecture is characterised by the following features: 1. Optimal funding models are designed with direct reference to public policy objectives. 2. Funding is based on the efficient cost of meeting students educational need, taking into account the characteristics of the school they attend. 3. Empirical research underpins funding rates and their variation across student cohorts and schooling settings. i ii iii Cost analyses inform base funding rates and variance based on differences in service delivery costs (e.g. based on remoteness or school size). Performance data (broadly defined) informs assessment of educational need, and the associated funding rates. Targeting based on increasingly granular data in preference to broad proxy measures. 4. Funding formulae are reviewed and as appropriate recalibrated on a periodic basis, drawing on cost and outcome data (noting the limitations on the use of these data in this context). 5. Funding is designed to keep pace with both increasing enrolments and growth in efficient service-delivery costs. 6. Tradeoffs among adequacy and efficiency; simplicity and specificity are shaped by policy priorities and in light of improvements in the quality and availability of data. 7. The basis for funding allocations (i.e. funding formulae) are publicly available, except in instances where there is a privacy or other public interest case against such openness. 8. Mechanisms are in place to both support schools in their deployment of resources and to ensure that deployment is consistent with the policy intent (i.e. the underlying funding rationale) especially in devolved models. 9. Optimal funding models incentivise private contributions where this is not at odds with the underlying philosophy; and at the very least do not create barriers to the procurement of private funds under appropriate circumstances. Current funding models At a structural level, Australia s current funding models for schooling bear many similarities. ary public funder models 1 broadly comprise recurrent, capital and targeted funding components, with base funding rates supplemented with specific loadings or initiatives for defined student or school characteristics. In general, these types of models are sophisticated in design and tend to be premised on facilitating optimal student outcomes 1 ary public funder models are those where the funder is the major source of government funds for the funding recipient (i.e. the school or system). They include state and territory funding models for government schools and the Commonwealth funding model for non-government schools (when the full suite of funding initiatives is taken into account and noting that some schools are largely funded by private sources). These models represent the lion s share of school funding in Australia. ii
11 for example, some of these models draw on student performance data to shape funding allocations. However, underlying this high-level similarity is considerable nuance and variation. These differences partly reflect local circumstances historic, geographic and demographic characteristics however, they also reflect the propensity for funding models to evolve at different rates and in different directions over time. Funding models which have been recently reviewed align more closely to optimal funding model design. The extent to which the architecture of Australia s current funding models accords with the principles of optimal design varies (although this variation is in many cases at the margin). Among the more significant variations are: their complexity (particularly insofar as targeted funding is concerned); the efficacy of targeted initiatives (both in terms of the appropriate targeting of educational need and the evidence base underlying this component of the funding model s design); and the rigour and effectiveness of funding model review processes (and in particular, the utilisation of performance data in this process). When a system-wide perspective is taken, and hence the interactions between discrete funding models are considered, a range of further issues emerge. Most significant among these is that inadequately prescribed lines of demarcation and poor coordination among different streams of funding lead to potentially inefficient overlap of funding and the potential compromise of funding model objectives. Concluding comments While clearly some of the existing models are performing better in certain areas than others, there is no best model among the current variants. Jurisdictional differences in funding model design can often be attributed to the local schooling context, which limits comparability across states and territories. Moreover, many of the differences revealed in this review reflect the varying states of funding model evolution (particularly insofar as those models which have recently been reviewed are concerned). Certainly there are improvements of varying degrees that could be made to most, if not all, of the current models based on the considerations outlined above. In practice, high calibre funding models are those which combine different features in a complementary and effective fashion given local demographic, historical and geographic factors and draw on the highest quality available evidence to inform their design and periodic review. iii
12 1 Introduction As part of a suite of analyses commissioned to inform the Review of Funding for Schooling (the Review), has been engaged to conduct a detailed assessment of the current funding models for schooling for the Review Panel. The assessment considers features of all state and territory and federal government funding models as they relate to both government and non-government schools. Purpose and scope Announced by the Australian Government in April 2010, the Review has been tasked with providing recommendations on future funding arrangements for schooling for the period beyond Among other things, the Review has been asked to consider current funding mechanisms and the role of funding arrangements in supporting educational outcomes. The purpose of study is to assist the Review Panel in understanding what constitutes an optimal school funding model from a public policy perspective, through: (i) an analysis of the relationship between funding models and educational outcomes; and (ii) an assessment of existing funding models in Australia, based on the extent to which they align with optimal funding model design principles. has not been requested to canvass new funding models or to explore the appropriateness of resourcing levels these issues will be examined in other Review research streams. The analysis focuses on funding models rather than funding systems. A funding model relates to the means and mechanisms through which funding is allocated from a given source to a defined group of recipients. It encompasses individual funding distribution channels (where relevant), the formulae that underpin allocations, as well as funding administration and any conditions governing use by funding recipients. In contrast, a funding system may be comprised of a single funding model or as is the case with schooling in Australia multiple discrete funding models that interact, given the regulatory and policy environment, to determine ultimate funding outcomes. Funding systems are examined in this report at a broad level, in terms of the interactions between state/territory and Commonwealth funding models. The ultimate aim of analysis is to identify strong funding model features and effective ways of balancing the tradeoffs inherent to funding model design. It is not the intention to attempt to determine which jurisdiction has a superior funding model in comparison to other jurisdictions, but rather to reach general conclusions regarding how funding models might optimally be designed. Approach approach to the assessment of existing funding models for schooling has comprised three components: 1
13 1. Development of a funding model assessment framework. 2. Characterisation and consolidation of funding models. 3. Application of the assessment framework. Collectively, these three components were informed by a review of the Australian and international policy and academic literature on funding models and educational outcomes; an analysis of data relating to schooling and school outcomes; and discussions with education authorities (including both government and non-government entities) in each jurisdiction. A list of the education authorities that participated in these discussions is included in Appendix A. An overview of each stage of study is outlined below. 1. Development of a funding model assessment framework The first phase involved the development of a structured assessment framework, in order to provide a rigorous, methodical and transparent basis for analysis. The assessment framework was derived from: an understanding of key public policy principles that relate to funding model design in a broad sense; an analysis of government policy objectives and recent state and territory, federal and overseas school funding model reviews, which provided an indication of principles that are considered important to optimal school funding model design; and a workshop with a small group of education sector experts, which explored the appropriate parameters for the assessment framework. During discussions with government and non-government education authorities throughout Australia, the assessment framework principles and indicators were also open to comment. The assessment framework outlined in tion 4 of this report received general endorsement by stakeholders and hence was modified only marginally through the consultation process. 2. Characterisation and consolidation of funding models During the second phase of the study, school funding models were examined in detail and then characterised into broad types to ensure the tractability of the assessment. This component of the analysis is presented in tion 5. The mapping of school funding and regulatory arrangements recently undertaken as part of the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) process to realise the National Education Agreement (NEA) commitment to review school funding and regulation provided the foundation for this phase. 3. Application of the assessment framework The final phase involved the application of the assessment framework to the consolidated set of school funding models. This stage of the study was informed by data analysis, desktop research and information obtained from discussions with government and nongovernment education authorities in each state and territory. 2
14 The funding model assessment has been undertaken with direct regard to the particular school and student characteristics of each jurisdiction. From a broader perspective, the interaction between different funding models was also considered and analysed in the context of the regulatory and policy environment. The synthesised findings are presented in tions 6 and 7 of the report. Report structure The report is structured as follows: tion 2 provides an overview of schooling in Australia including its structure and delivery as background and context to the assessment of current funding models. tion 3 examines the relationship between funding model design and educational outcomes. tion 4 details the funding model assessment framework that has been developed specifically for this study. tion 5 describes the key characteristics of the various funding models for schooling in Australia and consolidates them into several broad types for the purpose of the assessment. tion 6 presents the findings of the funding model assessment, incorporating examples of funding models that are particularly strong or limited in relation to each principle. tion 7 identifies some key lessons for future funding architecture that can be drawn from the assessment. Appendix A lists the education authorities who participated in the consultation process. Appendix B outlines education sector characteristics on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. Appendix C provides some further information on Commonwealth tax concessions available to schools. Appendix D includes technical information and analysis that supports the assessment in tion 6. Appendix E provides case studies that support the assessment in tion 6. 3
15 2 Background This section provides a high-level overview of schooling in Australia including its structure, delivery and the funding framework as background to the subsequent assessment of current funding models against key public policy principles. It is not intended to provide a detailed description of the nuances of schooling delivery or the historical development of funding arrangements rather, this section provides important context to an understanding of funding model design, by outlining key characteristics of schooling delivery and funding. 2.1 Schooling in Australia Schooling can be broadly defined as the provision of primary and secondary education. This sub-section provides an overview of schooling in Australia, including its structure, delivery, the policy environment and outcomes. It should be noted that not all schooling is delivered through schools (defined as formal institutions that deliver primary and secondary education). Schooling can also be delivered through other means such as home schooling and distance education. However, the focus of this report is on schooling that occurs in schools Structure Under the Australian Constitution, education is a state and territory government responsibility, encompassing the regulation of school education, administration and funding. Schooling is therefore structured on a jurisdictional basis, with legislation in each state and territory providing the framework for the delivery of education through government schools (with non-government schools also registered by jurisdiction). Schooling is also structured on a sectoral basis, comprising government and nongovernment sectors. The non-government sector is further divided into Catholic and independent sectors. Government schools have the responsibility of ensuring universal education for all young Australians, with state and territory legislation generally requiring that schooling should be provided for free and open to any child that is eligible to attend (although most jurisdictions allow government schools to charge a small fee). Non-government schools provide parents with choice in schooling for their children, as they offer an alternative to the government school system. However, the principle of universality does not apply to non-government schools. Catholic schools are generally organised into systems at either state/territory or diocesan levels and are characterised by their religious commitment to the Catholic faith. Most Catholic schools charge moderate fees and are open to students from families who support Catholic principles. 2 2 Approximately 50 Catholic Church affiliated schools are not systemic schools. References to Catholic schools and the Catholic sector throughout this report include these non-systemic schools (unless otherwise specified). 4
16 Independent schools tend to be autonomous and are managed by a school principal in conjunction with a governing body. Fee levels range from low to high and most independent schools are affiliated to churches or religious bodies. Access to independent schools often depends on ability to pay the designated fee and the extent to which a student s values align with those of the school. Formal schooling is 13 years in length, although there are some differences between jurisdictions in the division of years between preparatory, primary and secondary schooling. In Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia, for example, year 7 is included within primary schooling. Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have separate senior secondary schools for years 11 and 12. Some jurisdictions, such as Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, include pre-school education within primary schooling. In addition to primary schools and secondary schools, other types of schools include combined schools and special schools (which generally enrol students who have an intellectual or physical disability or impairment, learning disability and/or social or emotional problems). In 2010, there were 9,468 schools in Australia in total, comprising 6,743 government schools (71% of the total), 1,708 Catholic schools (18%) and 1,017 independent schools (11%). The distribution by school type was 6,357 primary schools (67% of the total), 1,409 secondary schools (15%), 1,286 combined schools (14%) and 416 special schools (4%) (ABS, 2011) Delivery Enrolment patterns vary across jurisdictional boundaries, due to the unique historical, demographic and geographic characteristics of each state and territory. Differences in enrolment patterns relate to sectors, school types and student characteristics (see below charts). 5
17 Chart 2.1: Student enrolments by sector, 2010 Chart 2.2: Student enrolments by school type, 2009 and % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas NT ACT Government Catholic Independent 0% C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA ary ondary ined Source: ABS (2011) Source: ACARA Note: Chart 2.1 shows proportion of full-time equivalent students by sector. In Chart 2.2: C&I refers to Catholic and independent schools; G refers to government schools. As these charts show, in every jurisdiction the majority of student enrolments are in the government sector although the proportion of government sector enrolments is highest in the NT and Tasmania and lowest in the ACT. Tasmania and NSW have the lowest proportion of enrolments in the independent sector, compared to other jurisdictions. The proportion of Catholic sector enrolments is highest in the ACT, Victoria and NSW. In terms of school type, combined schools are noticeably more prominent in the non-government sector, especially in WA, SA and Tasmania. In every jurisdiction, primary schools are more prevalent in the government sector. 6
18 Chart 2.3: Student/school characteristics by ATSI, ICSEA & remoteness, 2009 & % 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Proportion of ATSI enrolments Proportion of schools in bottom 20% of ICSEA rating Proportion of remote & very remote schools Source: ACARA Note: Chart includes all students and schools within both the government and non-government sectors. Chart based on ACARA data (mixture of 2009 and 2010 school profiles). ICSEA (Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage) data is Remote refers to an area considered spatially distant from the capital city of that state/territory; very remote refers to an area considered spatially very distant from the capital city. The above chart highlights the particular challenges faced by certain jurisdictions in the delivery of education to all students, as characteristics such as Indigenous background and remoteness have been shown to affect both student performance and education costs (lower baseline performance generally means that higher levels of resources are required to educate these students). 4 For example, analysis of student achievement in 2009 NAPLAN tests shows that reading outcomes nationally for Indigenous students were lower than those for non-indigenous students and that outcomes for Indigenous students generally declined as remoteness increased. For year 3 students, between % of very remote Indigenous students achieved at or above the reading national minimum standard, compared to % for remote Indigenous students, % for provincial Indigenous students and % for metropolitan Indigenous students (Productivity Commission, 2011: 64). 3 ICSEA is a measure of educational advantage/disadvantage. It incorporates a range of variables such as family background (e.g. parental occupation) and school characteristics (e.g. geo-location and proportion of Indigenous students) and was developed for the My School website to enable the comparison of statistically similar schools. ICSEA values range from around 500 (representing schools with students from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds) to about 1300 (representing schools with students from very advantaged backgrounds). 4 Other characteristics that impact on student performance and/or the cost of delivery include disability, non- English speaking background (although this is less clear-cut and can vary depending on a student s particular circumstances) and school size (with smaller schools generally unable to achieve economies of scale). 7
19 Some key points in relation to student characteristics are outlined below. The Northern Territory has substantially more Indigenous students, schools in low socio-economic areas and remote and very remote schools than any other jurisdiction. This has significant implications for per-student costs and the ability to attract and retain teachers, particularly for very remote schools (for example, some of these schools are only accessible by helicopter during the wet season). Western Australia and Queensland face similar challenges to the Northern Territory, but not to the same extent. Tasmania has a large proportion of low socio-economic schools, which can affect the capacity to raise private revenue, either through fees or fundraising (notably, Tasmania has the lowest proportion of independent school enrolments in Australia). Compared to other jurisdictions, the ACT and Victoria have relatively more homogenous student populations. Enrolment patterns also affect schooling delivery. For example, Queensland has a growing student population, with student numbers increasing by 31.9% from 1993 to This can lead to school infrastructure pressures and increased demand for teachers. In contrast, Tasmania has a declining student population falling by 5.3% over the same period which can manifest in under-utilised infrastructure and loss of economies of scale, eventually leading to school closures or amalgamations. Further details on the education sector characteristics of each jurisdiction are provided in Appendix B. Some themes and trends in the delivery of schooling that are common across jurisdictions are provided in Box 1 below. 8
20 Box 1: Themes and trends in Australian schooling delivery Overall, there has been a gradual decline in the number of schools, largely due to amalgamations within the government sector although this is somewhat offset by an increase in the number of independent schools (an increase of about 27% from 1993 to 2009). ondary schools are generally larger than primary schools, although the non-government sector has a greater proportion of small secondary schools (100 students or less) compared to the government sector. Over 50% of schools are located outside the major capital cities, with a higher number of government schools in remote and very remote areas, compared to non-government schools. Over the last 30 years, there has been a significant shift in enrolments from the government sector to the non-government sector, with the proportion of full-time student enrolments in the government sector falling from 78% in 1970 to 65% in Generally, there has been a decrease in the number of students per teacher since 1993, with this trend particularly evident in primary schools. Catholic schools have a higher average number of students per teacher compared to government and independent schools. In recent years, unmet demand for teachers has been especially pronounced in rural and remote areas, and in maths and science subjects, which has been further compounded by concerns about the ageing profile of the teaching profession. Source: Summary prepared by DEEWR based on ABS and other data Policy environment The key policy statement for Australian schooling is the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (the Melbourne Declaration). Released by MCEETYA in 2008, the Melbourne Declaration states that improving educational outcomes for all young Australians is central to the nation s prosperity and specifies two national goals for schooling: Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence. All young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens. The MCEECDYA Four Year Plan supports these national goals by outlining a number of government strategies and initiatives such as supporting quality teaching and school leadership, improving educational outcomes for Indigenous youth and disadvantaged young Australians, and strengthening accountability and transparency. Education policy developed through MCEECDYA closely aligns with the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) reform agenda. Key policy directions under the National Education Agreement (NEA) include improving teacher and school leader quality, greater accountability and better directed resources, and integrated strategies for low SES school communities. Three specific COAG targets have been identified: Lift the Year 12 or equivalent attainment rate to 90% by Halve the gap for Indigenous students in reading, writing and numeracy by
21 At least halve the gap for Indigenous students in Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by Other reform priorities under the NEA include implementing a national curriculum, improving transparency and accountability of schools for student and school performance, and providing support to students with additional needs. These intergovernmental agreements have a significant impact on the delivery of schooling, by setting the policy agenda and strongly influencing the types of educational programs that are developed and implemented across jurisdictions. Generally, funding does not have a direct relationship with intergovernmental agreements. However, states and territories are provided with Commonwealth funding (through separate arrangements) on the basis that it will be used to achieve education policy objectives outlined in these agreements (although states and territories have a large degree of flexibility regarding the best means to achieve policy objectives). 5 Details on funding arrangements are provided in tion 5 of the report State and territory government policy An overview of state and territory government schooling policy for each jurisdiction is provided below. 6 Although the descriptions are high-level and do not fully capture the complete range of policy initiatives within each jurisdiction, they nevertheless demonstrate some of the key contemporary policy responses being implemented at the state and territory level. Examples of specific policy initiatives are provided throughout tion 6 and Appendix E of the report, in relation to the funding model assessment. For all jurisdictions more broadly, factors related to the supply and quality of teachers also impact on the delivery of schooling. These factors encompass: Higher education policy, including selection, entry and qualifications. Teacher registration and accreditation. Industrial relations agreements, which can affect the allocation of teachers within and across schools. Australian Capital Territory The ACT Department of Education s Strategic Plan promotes the equal distribution of educational benefits across the ACT community. This has been supported by a new model of school improvement involving four networks, intended to improve flexibility, partnerships and school performance. Departmental plans have also been launched to address Excellence in disability education in ACT Public Schools and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Education Matters. The ACT Teacher Quality Institute has also been created and will be responsible for teacher registration, accreditation of pre-service teacher education programs, and certification of teachers in the ACT against national standards. 5 Some funding arrangements (such as National Partnerships) do link the implementation of specific policies and programs to the provision of funding i.e. funding is tagged and schools must spend the funds on particular objectives. 6 The descriptions are based on comments provided by jurisdictions in the Productivity Commission s Report on Government Services (2011). 10
22 Principals will also be provided with greater flexibility in the management of school resources and staffing decisions, following a review of School Based Management. New South Wales The NSW State Plan includes priorities to ensure that all children are engaged in and benefiting from schooling. Recent initiatives include assistance and resources to close the attainment gap between Aboriginal and non-aboriginal students, and reform through the Low Socio-Economic Status School Communities National Partnership. These reforms are targeted towards highly disadvantaged communities and focus on increased school-based innovation, strengthened school leadership and accountability and strengthened partnerships between schools and their communities. Northern Territory As part of the NT Government s Smart Territory strategy, a Literacy and Numeracy Taskforce has been formed to drive improvements in outcomes and is supported by Charles Darwin University, local businesses and stakeholders. To improve attendance, the Every Child Every Day Strategy has been launched to encourage community, school and parental involvement. Graduates with the new NT Certificate of Education and Training in 2011 will be required to plan their transition from school to work, training or higher education through a Compulsory Learning Plan. Remote schools have also been supported through the 200 Teachers program to re-engage Indigenous students. Centres of Excellence are also being established over the next four years at existing senior secondary sites, to provide opportunities for eligible students to gain access to innovative curriculum programs, industry experience and fast-tracked university entry. Queensland Queensland is progressing with a range of initiatives, including the transition of Year 7 to secondary school, establishment of an oversighting authority for educational standards and recruiting volunteers to promote reading in schools. Significant reforms are being implemented to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes such as summer schools and intensive teaching for students not meeting national minimum standards and ongoing professional development for teachers in this area. Teaching Centres of Excellence are also being established and a review of teacher pre-service preparation is being undertaken. South Australia Focused on improving the transition from education to the workforce, the updated South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE) commenced in Curriculum priorities include mathematics, science and literacy, with a particular emphasis on primary schools. Associated professional development for teachers is a strong element of these curriculum priorities. To support flexible education in regional areas, the Innovative Community Action Networks (ICAN) initiative was expanded, in conjunction with broadened Student Mentoring strategies and Country Teaching scholarships. SA has also introduced a new system for rewarding its most experienced teachers the Step 9 pay increment, based on submission of performance development plans and annual reviews of teacher performance. 11
23 Tasmania The Department of Education s strategic priorities include early years, literacy and numeracy, retention and building a knowledge-based society. Targeted funding intends to address disadvantage and close the economic gap by delivering services to communities and schools in greatest need. The Raising the Bar Closing the Gap initiatives have addressed literacy and numeracy in primary schools, with these programs to be extended to secondary and combined schools in Early childhood learning has been supported through the Launching into Learning program to increase school readiness. Further, reforms are in place to improve participation in education post Year 10 and in achieving qualifications to start on a career pathway. Victoria The Victorian schooling policy aims to support an independent, autonomous and diverse school system. There is a policy focus on ensuring school leaders are provided with sufficient resources and support, based on expectations of high standards from teachers and principals. Victoria has embraced the Ultranet, which connects teachers, parents and students on an online learning platform. Koorie Pathway Schools have been implemented to assist Aboriginal students in achieving learning outcomes while the Smarter Schools National Partnerships address socio-economic and teacher quality considerations. Ties between schools and business have been strengthened through the Business Working with Education Foundation, which aims to facilitate increased support for public education. Western Australia School policy in Western Australia focuses on equipping students for their future in civic and economic life. Priority areas include early childhood development and learning, literacy and numeracy, student behaviour and development of the workforce. In 2010, 34 government schools commenced as Independent Public Schools as part of the Australian Government s empowerment agenda, allowing greater flexibility in key areas to support improved performance. Other initiatives include the Better attendance: Brighter futures strategy and the creation of a School Innovation and Reform Unit to manage the local and national education reform agenda. Another key policy focus area is improving literacy and numeracy outcomes of at risk students Outcomes Student outcomes provide an important indication of the effectiveness of the education system as a whole. Outcomes can be measured through a number of variables such as student test achievement, school attendance and year 12 attainment (see below charts). It should be noted that the overall effectiveness of the education system cannot be captured solely through these types of student outcomes. Social outcomes (as outlined in the Melbourne Declaration) and other measures such as enhanced workforce productivity also reflect the level of effectiveness of education delivery. 12
24 Chart 2.4: Year 3 NAPLAN numeracy and reading mean scores, Source: ACARA 200 C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Numeracy Reading Standard deviation Numeracy Standard deviation Reading Chart 2.5: Year 9 NAPLAN numeracy and reading mean scores, Source: ACARA 400 C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G C&I G ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Numeracy Reading Standard deviation Numeracy Standard deviation Reading The above charts show the mean scores and standard deviations for year 3 and year 9 NAPLAN tests in numeracy and reading. The NT has noticeably lower average achievement levels than other jurisdictions, related to its high proportion of Indigenous and remote students. It also has significantly more variation in student achievement, whereas there is less dispersion in student results in the ACT, Victoria and NSW. Broadly, average achievement levels are higher in the non-government sector compared to the government sector. 13
25 Chart 2.6: Student attendance rates, 2009 (%) Chart 2.7: Year 12 (or equivalent) attainment, persons aged years, 2010 (%) NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT 0 NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Government Catholic and Independent Source: Tables 4A.135, 4A.137 and 4A.139, Productivity Commission (2011) Note: Includes attendance rates for years 1-10, primary ungraded and secondary ungraded. Data are not directly comparable as they are not collected uniformly across jurisdictions and sectors. Source: ABS (2010) Note: Chart also includes attainment of formal qualification at Certificate II level or above. School attendance provides an indication of the accessibility of schooling and of student engagement. Chart 2.6 shows that the NT faces significantly greater challenges in this area compared to other states and territories. In terms of year 12 attainment, the NT also has the lowest proportion of year olds who have completed year 12 or equivalent, although it is not far behind Tasmania. As noted above, lifting year 12 attainment rates is a key policy objective under the NEA. 2.2 Funding framework Funding for schooling is a shared responsibility between state and territory governments, the Commonwealth Government and private sources, with the government and nongovernment sectors each receiving a mix of funding from all three sources. However, the burden of primary funding responsibility varies depending on the school sector, largely as a consequence of constitutional arrangements. This has resulted in a complex funding environment, with an array of funding models that interact to provide the total level of funding to individual schools. Complexities in funding arrangements are further compounded by indirect funding of schooling that occurs through the taxation system. 14
26 2.2.1 Government funding responsibility Governments can be categorised as either primary public funders or supplementary public funders, based on their level of responsibility for funding particular sectors. This categorisation is important to ensuring a tractable assessment of all school funding models, as it enables the otherwise complex nature of school funding mechanisms to be consolidated into several broad types. A high-level overview of funding arrangements is provided below, with the key features of individual funding models described in further detail in tion 5 of this report. State and territory governments State and territory governments bear primary funding responsibility for the government sector. This relates to the constitutional responsibility of state and territory governments to deliver schooling on a universal basis. This commitment, whereby states and territories must ensure all young Australians receive an education regardless of their physical location or family income level, is met through the government school system. Consequently, based on the quantum of funding provided and level of involvement, states and territories could be described as the primary public funders of government schools and supplementary public funders of non-government schools. Each state and territory government has a unique funding model for its government schools, with its design reflecting the historical, demographic and geographic characteristics of the jurisdiction. Each funding model comprises recurrent, capital and targeted components but there are variances across jurisdictions in the level of complexity and decentralisation of budgetary responsibility. Commonwealth Government In comparison, the Commonwealth Government is the primary public funder of nongovernment schools (relative to the funding responsibility of state and territory governments and setting aside the proportion of private funding received by nongovernment schools 7 ). As such, the Commonwealth could be described as the primary public funder of non-government schools and supplementary public funder for government schools. The Commonwealth is able to fund schools under section 96 of the Constitution, which allows the Parliament to make payments to the states on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. The current balance of funding is the result of various historical and political circumstances. Commonwealth funding arrangements do not vary by jurisdiction, however. The Commonwealth has one set of funding arrangements for non-government schools and another set for government schools. Catholic school systems within each jurisdiction have their own funding allocation mechanism which determines the level of funding ultimately received by individual schools. In general, these mechanisms are relatively similar to state and territory funding models for 7 The proportion of private funding varies substantially between schools, and for some schools it is the primary source of funding. 15
27 government schools, as they incorporate funding formulae and a range of needs-based measures Types of funding Schools receive three types of funding: recurrent, capital and targeted funding. These funding types are briefly overviewed below. Recurrent funding Chart 2.8 below shows the proportion of gross recurrent income received by government, Catholic and independent schools by source. Consistent with the discussion above, government schools receive a greater proportion of their funding from state and territory governments, and non-government schools receive a greater proportion from the Commonwealth. Compared to independent schools on average, the Catholic sector receives relatively more Commonwealth funding and less private funding, however within the independent sector the proportion of funding from private and government sources varies greatly. Chart 2.8: Proportion of recurrent income by funding source, % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Source: ACARA Catholic Government Independent State Commonwealth Private Note: This chart shows averages and does not illustrate the variation between low SES and high SES schools within sectors i.e. low SES schools receive a lower proportion of recurrent income from private sources compared to high SES schools (particularly in the independent sector). The table below details the level of recurrent income received by each sector in 2009, according to data collected from schools by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Government schools received the lion s share of recurrent income from government sources, comprising $24 billion in total. Recurrent income from private sources (including fees) totalled $1.4 billion, equating to about 5.5% of total recurrent income. 16
28 In contrast, Catholic schools received $5.4 billion in recurrent income from government sources and $2.2 billion as recurrent private income. Independent schools received a higher proportion of recurrent income from private sources $4.3 billion in total compared to government sources $3 billion in total. tor Table 2.1: Level of recurrent income by funding source, 2009 ($b) Commonwealth State/ territory Fees Private (other) Total Government Catholic Independent Total Source: ACARA Capital funding Capital expenditure provides an indication of the level and distribution of capital funding. The proportion of capital expenditure for government, Catholic and independent schools by funding source is shown in Chart 2.9 below. Governments are the predominant capital funders for government schools across all jurisdictions. State and territory government funding is almost entirely directed towards government schools, with the Western Australian, Queensland and ACT governments providing a significantly greater proportion of capital funding compared to other jurisdictions. Capital funding patterns are broadly similar across the Catholic and independent sectors, with about half of all capital expenditure funded by government sources (although there are variances between jurisdictions e.g. in the NSW, Western Australian and Victorian independent sectors, only about 30% of capital expenditure is funded by government sources). Significantly, the Commonwealth Government funded a substantial proportion of capital expenditure in almost all sectors and jurisdictions. However, this reflects funding distributed to schools under the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program and is therefore anomalous (compared to a standard year). 8 8 Under the BER program, $16.2 billion in Commonwealth funding was allocated to schools for new infrastructure and refurbishments. The four year program commenced in
29 Chart 2.9: Proportion of capital expenditure by funding source, % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Catholic Government Independent State Commonwealth New Loans Fees PrivateOther Source: ACARA Note: New Loans refers to funding from capital loan drawdowns; Private Other refers to funding from other private sources including retained earnings from previous years. The table below details the level of capital expenditure by funding source in 2009, according to data collected from schools by ACARA. In total, approximately $3.1 billion in capital expenditure was undertaken by the government sector (with expenditure from government sources split relatively evenly between Commonwealth and state/territory government sources). In the Catholic sector, about $0.8 billion in capital expenditure was funded from private sources, compared to just over $1 billion for the independent sector. tor Table 2.2: Level of capital expenditure by funding source, 2009 ($m) Commonwealth State/ territory New loans Fees Private (other) Government 1,447 1, ,150 Catholic ,638 Independent ,614 Total 2,811 1, ,402 Source: ACARA Total Chart 2.10 below illustrates that recurrent funding (based on recurrent income) comprises the lion s share of funding received by schools, in comparison to capital funding (based on capital expenditure). 18
30 Chart 2.10: Total recurrent and capital funding proportions, % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Catholic Government Independent Source: ACARA Recurrent funding Capital funding Targeted funding Targeted funding is provided for specific educational objectives or outcomes, generally related to addressing educational disadvantage. Targeted funding often includes some form of accountability, such as ongoing reporting requirements. One way the Commonwealth provides targeted funding to government and nongovernment schools is under National Partnerships (NPs). These funding arrangements are designed to provide flexibility in the achievement of outcomes and financial controls are not used. Accountability mechanisms relate to the linking of payments with: (a) the achievement of milestones as agreed in implementation plans (for project and facilitation payments); or (b) meeting performance benchmarks (for reward payments). Under the NP for Smarter Schools Low SES School Communities, for example, $1.16 billion was provided to both government and non-government schools. State and territory governments also provide targeted funding to schools. Examples include the Priority Schools Funding Program in NSW and the Raising the Bar Closing the Gap program in Tasmania. The Australian Council for Education Research (ACER) estimates that programs seeking to address educational disadvantage provided minimum national aggregate funding of $4.4 billion during (ACER, 2011) Indirect funding through the taxation system In addition to direct funding, governments provide indirect funding to schools through tax concessions at the federal and state/territory level and rate exemptions at the local level. 19
31 However, data limitations mean that the level of funding provided through these mechanisms cannot be readily quantified (see Box 2 below). Box 2: Challenges of measuring indirect funding Although the types of tax concessions available to schools can readily be identified, the value of these tax concessions cannot be measured with any certainty. arily, this is due to a lack of sufficiently detailed data. Some data limitations relate to: the nature of some tax concessions, where liabilities are not directly incurred by the recipient and therefore exact data cannot be collected by the Australian Tax Office; and the unavailability of disaggregated data for some tax concessions, which means that estimates cannot be determined for schools (in isolation from other recipients). Federal Treasury has indicated that further detail on the value of tax concessions provided to, and utilised by, the not-for-profit (NFP) sector may be collected by the proposed new national NFP regulator. Commonwealth Government Under the Commonwealth tax system, government and non-government schools are able to apply for deductible gift recipient (DGR) status for certain purposes, such as school building funds, educational scholarship funds and public libraries. This enables donors to claim an income tax deduction for their donation towards these specific purposes. Government and non-government schools are also entitled to goods and services tax (GST) exemptions. Under these exemptions, some education supplies are GST free and schools can elect to have school canteens and fundraising treated as input taxed. 9 Non-government schools, as not-for-profit institutions, are also eligible for income tax exemptions and the fringe benefits tax (FBT) rebate. Under the FBT rebate, nongovernment schools can receive a 48% rebate of the FBT that would otherwise be payable on up to $30,000 of the gross taxable value of fringe benefits per employee. According to the Federal Treasury, however, the FBT rebate is rarely used by non-government schools as it is only beneficial for employees who are on, or just below, the top marginal tax rate (i.e. employees must earn above $180,000 per year a salary level that is beyond the range of most teacher salaries). The total value of indirect funding to schools cannot be determined with any precision. Estimates and orders of magnitude for various tax concessions are provided in the Tax Expenditures Statement published by Federal Treasury, but these cannot be disaggregated to indicate the cost of providing tax concessions to schools. Appendix C includes the overall estimates for each relevant tax concession. However, the total value of indirect funding via the taxation system is likely to be significant. As an example, the GST exemption for education (which includes school 9 Input taxed means that GST is not charged on sales and, conversely, GST credits cannot be claimed for purchases. 20
32 canteens) was estimated to be $2.4 billion in Treasury notes that an increase in the value of this GST exemption, in addition to the introduction of the Education Tax Refund, has driven growth in education tax expenditure for all levels of education in recent years (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). State/territory and local government Across jurisdictions, non-government schools are generally entitled to payroll tax and land tax exemptions. In contrast, government schools in most jurisdictions do not receive payroll tax exemptions (with the exception of Western Australia and the ACT). Government and non-government schools are also exempt from payment of local government rates (with the exception of Tasmania, where local government rates for government schools are paid centrally by the Department of Education). As is the case for Commonwealth tax concessions, a robust estimate of the overall value of indirect funding to schools through state and territory tax concessions cannot be determined. Estimates of payroll tax exemptions for schools are published by some jurisdictions. For example, NSW estimates the payroll tax exemption for schools and colleges was $160 million (NSW Government, 2010). 2.3 Conclusions In total, there are 18 individual school funding models in Australia (eight state and territory funding models for government schools, eight state and territory funding models for nongovernment schools, one Commonwealth funding model for non-government schools and one Commonwealth funding model for government schools). This figure does not include the mechanisms for funding allocation used by Catholic systems or Commonwealth funding that applies to both the government and non-government sector (i.e. National Partnerships). To determine total funding outcomes, there is clearly a complicated mix of funding arrangements, even at the individual school level. As noted in tion 1, individual funding models interact within funding systems (which can be viewed through a number of prisms in other words, funding systems can be sectoral, jurisdictional or national). In each case, however, funding systems are built upon the relationships between primary and supplementary public funders. Funding models and funding systems also operate within different educational contexts. Varying enrolment patterns and student outcomes are evident across jurisdictions and sectors, reflecting the unique historical, demographic and geographic characteristics of each jurisdiction and sector. 21
33 3 Funding models and educational outcomes This section provides an overview of the Australian and international evidence on the role of funding model design in determining students educational outcomes. The literature on the determinants of schooling outcomes is extensive and the intention here is not to provide an exhaustive review of this research. Rather, the focus is on studies that have attempted to isolate and analyse the direct role of funding model design and given the paucity of research in this narrow field studies that have assessed the impact of factors which are amenable to influence via funding model design. The analysis in this section provides an important foundation to the assessment of Australia s schooling funding models and demonstrates how effective funding model design can contribute to enhanced educational outcomes. 3.1 How does funding model design influence educational outcomes? There is an extensive body of literature analysing the relationship between the quantum of funding and educational outcomes (this issue is not the primary focus of this piece of analysis). For example, researchers have examined the relationship between educational outcomes and class size, which is linked to the level of funding provided to education systems. An overview of this evidence is provided in the box below. However, there is considerably less evidence regarding the direct impact of funding model design. Indeed, there are few studies that have analysed this issue in any depth. While a number of factors likely underlie this, it primarily reflects that: (i) the role of funding models in schooling is not to directly influence student outcomes, but rather to underwrite the appropriate resourcing; and (ii) funding models operate within a complex environment, where their effects cannot readily be isolated or distinguished from other factors (explored in tion 3.2). Nevertheless, there is a raft of research analysing the impact of education program characteristics on student outcomes. To the extent that funding model design can influence such characteristics, inferences can be drawn regarding the potential links between funding and outcomes. 22
34 Box 3: Class size and educational outcomes Evidence on class size is mixed. Generally, Australian and international research suggests that increases in spending per pupil resulting in class size reduction do not provide a proportional improvement in educational performance. 10 Cross-country studies also show that class size is a relevant variable only in settings with low teacher quality. 11 An analysis of four Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) cohorts and five mathematics surveys from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) show a small but statistically significant fall in numeracy over in numeracy and in both literacy and numeracy over the period for young Australian teenagers. This is despite a substantial increase in real per-child school expenditure over this period, and the average class size decreasing from 36 in 1964 to 26 in Furthermore, a synthesis of meta-analyses and other class size studies from 1978 to 2004 from a large variety of countries across all grades of schools found that the typical effect of reducing class size from 25 to 15 had a mean positive effect-size of about 0.13 (standard deviations above average educational achievement). Although this effect is positive, it is relatively small when compared to the average of many other educational interventions on student achievement (0.40). 13 In contrast to the above studies, Project STAR (the Tennessee Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio experiment) found that performance on standardised tests increased by four percentage points the first year students attended small classes (13-17 students compared to students) and the test score advantage of students in small classes increased by about one percentile point per year in subsequent years. 14 The benefit for students of a minority background of class size reduction was almost double that for white students. 15 However, gains over time for all students indicate that after students return to regular classes, the effects begin to decrease. 16 Although there is no single factor which explains why some schools generate better results than others, evidence from Australia and overseas suggests that several factors which are amenable to funding model design in particular average socio-economic status of the school, teacher quality and school autonomy are potentially significant determinants of educational outcomes. The importance of these factors is reflected in current Australian education policy directions. For example, the MCEECDYA Four Year Plan and the NEA focus on priorities such as supporting quality teaching and improving educational outcomes for low SES students. The Smarter Schools National Partnerships for Improving teacher quality and Low SES school communities are specific examples of funding programs that have been informed by the evidence on drivers of educational outcomes. 10 For example, Hanushek and Woessmann (2010); Leigh and Ryan, (2009); Hattie, (2005); Hanushek, (2006); Hanushek et al. (1996); Hoxby (2000); Woessmann, (2003). 11 Hanushek and Woessmann (2010). 12 Leigh and Ryan, (2009). 13 Hattie (2005). 14 Krueger (1999). 15 Finn and Achilles (1990). 16 Tomlinson (1990). 23
35 In summary, while there may not be a direct link between funding model design and students educational outcomes, there are likely a range of indirect links Socio-economic background It is well established that the socio-economic background of students (measured by parent s occupation and level of educational attainment, place of residence, attitude and outlooks) has a significant impact on their educational outcomes. 17 An analysis of PISA 2009 for Australia found that the gap in reading literacy between students in the highest and lowest socio-economic quartile was equivalent to nearly three years of schooling (or more than one proficiency level). 18 Further to this, in 2000, the mean tertiary entrance score obtained by Year 12 students in the bottom quintile of SES was 22 points below the mean score achieved by students in the highest quintile of SES. 19 Analysis of PISA 2009 results across OECD countries also found that 18% of the variation in student performance is attributable jointly to spending on education and the socioeconomic and demographic background of students and schools, whereas only 5% of the variation is attributable solely to differences in the educational resources available to schools. 20 There is also a body of research describing how concentrations of disadvantage can have a strong, additional impact on student performance. An array of Australian and international studies demonstrate that the results for students from all socio-economic backgrounds tend to improve when they attend schools with larger proportions of students from high SES backgrounds, and decline when there are larger proportions of low SES students. 21 PISA 2003 revealed that in OECD countries where schools differed significantly in their socio-economic intake, the percentage of variation in student performance that could be attributed to individual student s socio-economic background was smaller than the variation in performance that could be attributed to socio-economic background of the whole school. 22 Lamb et al. (2004) suggest that Like physical resources, pupils provide a resource which helps some schools organise their teaching and other programs in ways which help raise levels of achievement. Furthermore, using Australian data from PISA 2003, Perry and McConney (2010) found that, on average, low SES background students achieved 57 points more on the PISA reading, mathematics and science scales in high SES schools compared to low SES schools - this is equivalent to one and a half years of schooling. Students from high SES backgrounds displayed a similar difference in performance between high SES schools and low SES schools. 17 OECD (2004a). 18 Thomson et al. (2010). 19 Lamb et al (2004). 20 OECD (2010). 21 For example Southworth (2010); Rumberger and Palardy (2005); Borman and Dowling (2010); Williams (2010); OECD (2004a); Lamb et al. (2004); Holmes-Smith (2006); NSW DET (2011). 22 OECD (2004a). 24
36 Some international evidence suggests that pursuing equity in educational achievement by reducing the variance in average socio-economic status between schools does not appear to come at the cost of achievement levels for students from a higher socio-economic background. Countries participating in PISA with less stratified national education systems such as Finland and Canada record a greater proportion of students achieving higher proficiency levels alongside low between-school variance in educational achievement (about one-tenth of the OECD average in Finland) compared to countries with more segregated systems. 23 In general, these countries also appear to have higher overall achievement 24 and correspondingly, the relationship of parents socio-economic status with students school achievement appear to be small when compared to other OECD nations. 25 In contrast, recent analysis undertaken by NSW DET (2011) found that the highest SES students show the largest change in performance depending on whether they are enrolled in a low SES school compared to a high SES school. In addition, relatively high SES students experienced particularly negative impacts by attending a school with higher levels of average disadvantage Teacher quality The existing evidence suggests that educational effectiveness is strongly related to the provision of quality teaching and learning experiences. 26 For example, findings from an analysis of Queensland test results revealed that a teacher at the 90 th percentile of performance can achieve in half a year what a teacher at the 10 th percentile can achieve in a full year. 27 Teacher qualities, such as full certification and a major in the field being taught rather than educational level (e.g. a Master s degree) have been found to be a stronger influence on student achievement compared to student background factors such as poverty, language background and minority status. 28 An analysis of Australian schools by Lamb et al (2004) found that several factors helped produce better student educational achievement: higher concentrations of teachers satisfied by their jobs; the use of innovative rather than traditional teaching styles; the academic climate of schools reflected in the broad aspiration levels of students; students views on teachers; and engagement in school life. Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) suggest that to deliver effective education, teachers must be equipped with evidence-based teaching strategies that are supported by instructional leadership. 23 Sahlberg (2007). 24 OECD (2004a); OECD (2010). 25 Valijarvi and Malin (2003) in Sahlberg (2007). 26 For example, Lamb et al. (2004); Darling-Hammond (2000); Hattie (2005); Rowe (2003). 27 Leigh (2007). 28 For example, Rowe (2002); Darling-Hammond (2000); Cuttance (1998). 25
37 In Australia, teacher allocation within schools has also been found to have an impact on educational outcomes. Analysis undertaken by the University of Melbourne for the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, which led to changes in the design of its funding model for government schools, noted that more effective schools have found a balance of experienced and inexperienced teachers across all year levels. 29 ifically, the Victorian research found that: ondary schools which allocate their most experienced (and higher cost) teachers more evenly between Year 7 and Year 12 are significantly more likely to promote higher levels of student engagement and student retention. In terms of VCE achievement, however, schools which concentrate experienced teachers in the senior years tend to promote higher levels of VCE achievement. This may indicate that schools which allocate teacher resources more evenly across year levels have more diverse student populations in the senior years (due to higher retention rates), which can impact on the ability to deliver high VCE achievement. ary schools that are less effective in promoting student engagement tend to concentrate the most experienced (and costly) teachers in Year 6, whereas more effective schools deploy experienced teachers in the entry years as well as the senior years. In terms of achievement, primary schools which concentrate their most experienced teachers in the earlier years are significantly more likely to promote higher levels of achievement in Year 5, highlighting the importance of early intervention. Analysis conducted as part of Tasmania s current funding model review also highlighted the importance of teacher allocation in enhancing student achievement. It found that underperforming schools tend to be inefficient in their use of teaching resources. In these schools, highly experienced teachers were most likely to be teaching year 10, whereas in best-performing schools the highly experienced teachers were teaching either year 7 or the difficult classes. 29 Effective schools were identified using a regression procedure which included controls for student family occupation, achievement, size, percentage of students with disabilities and location. 26
38 Box 4: Teacher quality the Finnish experience In Finland, teaching has always been a highly respected profession that attracts some of the nation s best secondary school graduates - only 10% of students pass the rigorous selection procedure to enter teacher training. Canada has also increased the status of the profession recently by selective admission into teacher training and development of professional teaching standards. 30 Finnish teacher education programs are distinguished by their depth and scope which enables graduates to master a theoretical and practical understanding of various teaching and learning methods making them highly competent professionals. Professional development of teachers has become a right rather than an obligation of teachers with school or municipality-based longer term professional development programs replacing compulsory, traditional in-service training. The increased professionalism of teaching has resulted in teachers and schools being given greater responsibility for their work and greater capacity to solve problems and engage in school development projects, nationally and internationally 31. Improving quality teaching and learning experiences was identified as the most prevalent intervention in the improvement of student performance across 20 school systems from around the globe, in a study by McKinsey & Company in From different starting points, all systems achieved significant, sustained and widespread improvement as measured by national and international assessment standards. 32 Systems with characteristics most similar to Australia (for example, systems within the United States and England) focused on increasing the professionalisation of teaching through self-led, peerled and center-led learning; coaching and mentorship opportunities; raising the calibre of entering teachers and professionals by raising the entry bar for new teacher candidates; and raising the quality of pre-service training and certification requirements. Decentralisation of the delivery of professional development and other specialised programs was also found to be an important driver of continuing improvement in student performance. This method of empowering the profession through school-led exchange of ideas and practices was used successfully in Ontario, Canada to cause a sustained rise in primary literacy. In successful and improving education systems, the importance of attracting topperforming students to the profession is recognised through remuneration and reward systems salaries are increased when system goals are reached or required progress had been made in achieving those goals. Overseas education systems with educational outcomes relevant to the Australian context provide teachers with competitive base salaries, with the final level of remuneration related to the individual teacher s professional position in their career. Systems achieving outcomes above Australia s provide teacher salaries significantly above the national GDP per capita enabling them to recruit the best and brightest students to the profession. Bonus schemes are also in place for example, in Singapore top-performing teachers can receive bonuses equivalent to 3 months salary OECD (2004b). 31 Sahlberg (2007). 32 McKinsey & Company (2010). 33 Ibid. 27
39 3.1.3 Autonomy Positive correlations have been found between student achievement and schools that have autonomy in decision making in areas such as purchasing of supplies, budget allocations within schools, hiring and rewarding teachers (within a given budget), choosing textbooks and instructional methods. 34 This is particularly strong where there is also accountability in the form of external lesson inspections and comparison of schools to national performance levels and external school exit exams. 35 However, some Australian research has found that a high level of autonomy is less effective for schools in remote locations, due to the difficulties in recruiting teachers to work in isolated and/or highly disadvantaged settings. 36 Some international evidence suggests that school autonomy over teacher salaries and course content is only effective in school systems that have external exams in place and is negatively associated in systems without external exams. 37 Moreover, Woessmann et al. (2009) found that in general, all types of accountability systems combined with autonomy were effective in increasing student s cognitive skills whether they were aimed at the teacher, school or student. This finding is contentious, with prominent research from the United States indicating that extensive testing systems linking school performance to rewards and penalties is ineffective in improving student performance. 38 In most of the countries that performed well in PISA 2000, local authorities and schools had substantial freedom to adapt and implement educational content. 39 The Finnish experience which highlights the importance of tailoring education delivery to local circumstances is outlined in the box below. Box 5: Autonomy in Finland s education system The success of Finland s education system in PISA 2000 was partially attributed to its high level of autonomy in terms of the courses offered by schools. In addition, accountability is based on teacher-made tests rather than standardised external tests. The belief that teachers, principals, parents and their communities know how to deliver the best possible education for their children is founded upon high levels of social capital and trust for public institutions in Finnish society. It has encouraged the adoption of innovative teaching methods without the fear of failure and enables schools to organise the teaching of the national curriculum framework in a manner which will optimise their resources. 40 Interestingly, the best performing OECD countries on PISA 2003 (Finland, Japan, the Netherlands and Korea) have no form of national assessment for consequential accountability purposes but use comparative school performance data as an internal guide 34 For example, Fuchs and Woessmann (2007); Woessmann et al. (2009). 35 Hanushek and Woessmann (2010). 36 Educational Transformations (2007). 37 Hanushek and Woessmann (2010). 38 Darling-Hammond (2000). 39 OECD (2004b). 40 Sahlberg (2007). 28
40 for teaching practices, internal ranking of schools or monitoring the achievement of curriculum objectives. It appears that in advanced educational systems, the collaborative practice amongst teachers (as outlined above) serves as an accountability mechanism and can substitute for formalised teacher appraisal: By developing a shared concept of what good practice looks like, and basing it on a fact based inquiry into what works best to help students learn, teachers hold each other accountable to adhering to those accepted practices Broader systemic context It is recognised that a complex array of variables interact to ultimately determine a student s educational outcomes. Drawing together the information presented in tions 2 and 3, Figure 3.1 below illustrates the causal relationships that impact on, and determine, student outcomes. In-school experience encompasses a number of factors: resourcing levels; the funding model (through its indirect influence on factors such as teacher quality and autonomy); policy and regulation (which includes industrial relations and teacher supply and quality); and the school environment (which includes school type and sector, teaching staff, curriculum, peer effects and community engagement). Student background refers to family background, prior student achievement and inherent ability. It is an exogenous variable that impacts on the in-school experience and student outcomes but cannot be directly addressed through policies or programs. This means that efforts to improve educational outcomes need to be directed toward in-school variables, taking into account where possible the impact of student background. This mapping of determinants of student outcomes accords broadly with Grubb (2011), who posits that school outcomes are a function of school resources (classified as simple, compound, complex and abstract), various dimensions of family background, student connectedness to schooling and other external policies. Grubb also argues that funding only has an indirect effect on outcomes, through its potential rather than direct influence on school resources and student connectedness to schooling. 41 McKinsey and Company (2010) p
41 Figure 3.1: Impacts and determinants of student outcomes In-school experience Resourcing levels Policy and regulation Funding model School environment Student background Student outcomes 3.3 Implications for this analysis Despite at times conflicting findings in the documented empirical research, it is evident that researchers have been able to identify many of the key determinants of educational outcomes. Moreover, while there is a dearth of evidence directly linking funding model design to outcomes, the findings of the literature survey suggest that several factors significant to student outcomes are at least partially influenced by funding model design. In this sense, optimally designed funding models are a necessary but not sufficient condition for the achievement of high quality student outcomes. Among the most significant implications in this regard are: Social and economic disadvantage is a significant barrier to educational achievement and overcoming this through effective supplementary resourcing is key to improving student performance among these groups, and hence overall. Teacher quality is paramount and while many of the determinants of teacher quality are outside the direct realm of funding model influence (e.g. attractiveness of the profession, leading to the selection and recruitment of high quality teachers, or the quality of training), funding nevertheless has a potential role to play in (i) rewarding high calibre teachers; (ii) shaping the allocation of teachers across and within schools; and (iii) increasing teacher quality over time (i.e. supporting professional development). Internationally, educational systems successful in improving student performance have progressively moved towards decentralised models. This has allowed schools and municipalities to focus on the unique needs of their students and the ways in 30