Gone are the days when voting based on schools policy was straightforward and public education advocates lined up with Labor party while non-government school supporters were with the Coalition. It is difficult these days to find stark differences between the major parties on school education policy, but closer inspection reveals some important points of contrast.
On funding, Labor and the Coalition appear to be similar. Labor has convinced New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT to sign up to the Better Schools program (formerly known as the ‘Gonski’ reform) which begins in 2014. The Coalition has promised to honour the funding commitments made by Labor. It is likely both parties would resume negotiations with non-participating states and territories (WA, Queensland and NT) after the election.
The critical difference between the parties on school funding is the time-frame. Labor’s agreement is for six years, with the extra funding phased in slowly at first. Most schools will not get anything even approaching their full allocation of funding until the fifth and six years of the deal (2018 and 2019), and even beyond. Funding for those years is not included in the federal budget’s forward estimates.
The Coalition’s most recent policy is to implement Better Schools funding for the first four years of the agreement. This is more pragmatic than their previous intentions to scrap the funding model, or to implement it for one year. It is also strategic. It provides schools with certainty after a long period of instability, has effectively neutralised school funding as an election issue, and yet avoids a commitment to the later and most expensive phase of the funding transition.
The Better Schools policy is not just a funding model. It attaches conditions to Commonwealth funding enforceable through the Australian Education Act 2013. These conditions include the creation of ‘Implementation Plans’ by the ‘approved authorities’ in charge of systems of schools – state governments and Catholic Education Offices – and the development of ‘School Improvement Plans’ by schools themselves, all of which must be regularly reviewed and updated. NAPLAN testing and the Australian Curriculum are required under the agreement, as are various other plans regarding teacher and principal performance management and school safety. Failure to comply with these conditions to the federal education minister’s satisfaction risks withdrawal or reduction of Commonwealth funds.
POWERS REMAIN IN LEGISLATION
Some states have negotiated the accountability requirements and the right of intervention of federal government, but these ministerial powers remain in the legislation. The Coalition has pledged to amend the Act to weaken these powers, but Labor’s position on this is still not clear.
On the issue of school autonomy, Labor and the Coalition are united. Labor has encouraged the growth of independent public schools and decentralisation of school management and Liberal party policy concurs. Neither party has stated an intention to ‘privatise’ education, through either the non-profit or the for-profit sector. The Australian Education Act rules out public funding to for-profit schools.
Policies on curriculum and assessment diverge only slightly. The Australian Curriculum would be retained by both parties but Liberal party policy is to ensure it is “rigorous without being prescriptive or over-crowded”. Both parties support NAPLAN and Labor is steadfast on the publication of data on school performance on the My School website. Shadow education minister Christopher Pyne has expressed reservations about publishing NAPLAN data on My School, but there is no official Liberal party policy on this.
Teacher quality is a strong component of both parties’ policy agenda. Labor and the Coalition have each endorsed the idea of making entry to teacher education courses more difficult and setting higher standards for graduation. A point of difference is that Labor’s Better Schools policy is to limit entry to teaching degrees to the top 30 per cent of graduates, while Pyne argues that this is too arbitrary and other factors should be considered. Both have advocated stronger accreditation requirements for teaching degrees and registration. The Coalition has flagged the establishment of a Ministerial Advisory Group to advise the government on how to improve teacher education. The fate of numerous other federal government programs is mostly unknown. The Liberal Party’s plan specifically endorses only two: the School Chaplaincy program and the Primary Connections science program.For Labor’s intentions we must look to the budget for guidance. Neither of these programs is funded beyond this financial year. Big ticket capital works programs like the Trade Training Centres are still in the budget forward estimates but, as with everything else, there are no guarantees.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Spot the difference in educational policy
Spot the difference in educational policy
Gone are the days when voting based on schools policy was straightforward and public education advocates lined up with Labor party while non-government school supporters were with the Coalition. It is difficult these days to find stark differences between the major parties on school education policy, but closer inspection reveals some important points of contrast.
On funding, Labor and the Coalition appear to be similar. Labor has convinced New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT to sign up to the Better Schools program (formerly known as the ‘Gonski’ reform) which begins in 2014. The Coalition has promised to honour the funding commitments made by Labor. It is likely both parties would resume negotiations with non-participating states and territories (WA, Queensland and NT) after the election.
The critical difference between the parties on school funding is the time-frame. Labor’s agreement is for six years, with the extra funding phased in slowly at first. Most schools will not get anything even approaching their full allocation of funding until the fifth and six years of the deal (2018 and 2019), and even beyond. Funding for those years is not included in the federal budget’s forward estimates.
The Coalition’s most recent policy is to implement Better Schools funding for the first four years of the agreement. This is more pragmatic than their previous intentions to scrap the funding model, or to implement it for one year. It is also strategic. It provides schools with certainty after a long period of instability, has effectively neutralised school funding as an election issue, and yet avoids a commitment to the later and most expensive phase of the funding transition.
The Better Schools policy is not just a funding model. It attaches conditions to Commonwealth funding enforceable through the Australian Education Act 2013. These conditions include the creation of ‘Implementation Plans’ by the ‘approved authorities’ in charge of systems of schools – state governments and Catholic Education Offices – and the development of ‘School Improvement Plans’ by schools themselves, all of which must be regularly reviewed and updated. NAPLAN testing and the Australian Curriculum are required under the agreement, as are various other plans regarding teacher and principal performance management and school safety. Failure to comply with these conditions to the federal education minister’s satisfaction risks withdrawal or reduction of Commonwealth funds.
POWERS REMAIN IN LEGISLATION
Some states have negotiated the accountability requirements and the right of intervention of federal government, but these ministerial powers remain in the legislation. The Coalition has pledged to amend the Act to weaken these powers, but Labor’s position on this is still not clear.
On the issue of school autonomy, Labor and the Coalition are united. Labor has encouraged the growth of independent public schools and decentralisation of school management and Liberal party policy concurs. Neither party has stated an intention to ‘privatise’ education, through either the non-profit or the for-profit sector. The Australian Education Act rules out public funding to for-profit schools.
Policies on curriculum and assessment diverge only slightly. The Australian Curriculum would be retained by both parties but Liberal party policy is to ensure it is “rigorous without being prescriptive or over-crowded”. Both parties support NAPLAN and Labor is steadfast on the publication of data on school performance on the My School website. Shadow education minister Christopher Pyne has expressed reservations about publishing NAPLAN data on My School, but there is no official Liberal party policy on this.
Teacher quality is a strong component of both parties’ policy agenda. Labor and the Coalition have each endorsed the idea of making entry to teacher education courses more difficult and setting higher standards for graduation. A point of difference is that Labor’s Better Schools policy is to limit entry to teaching degrees to the top 30 per cent of graduates, while Pyne argues that this is too arbitrary and other factors should be considered. Both have advocated stronger accreditation requirements for teaching degrees and registration. The Coalition has flagged the establishment of a Ministerial Advisory Group to advise the government on how to improve teacher education. The fate of numerous other federal government programs is mostly unknown. The Liberal Party’s plan specifically endorses only two: the School Chaplaincy program and the Primary Connections science program.For Labor’s intentions we must look to the budget for guidance. Neither of these programs is funded beyond this financial year. Big ticket capital works programs like the Trade Training Centres are still in the budget forward estimates but, as with everything else, there are no guarantees.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: