When the previous Labor government implemented David Gonski’s schools funding report through needs-based agreements with the states, it and the Australian Education Union made the Gonski name the gold-standard. The campaign’s lime green shirts proclaimed “I give a Gonski”, as if that was all the wearer need say.
But then Malcolm Turnbull and the education minister, Simon Birmingham, stood side by side with Gonski when announcing their new schools funding plan. Increasing federal funding to a fixed proportion of the schools resource standard is a different model, but applied the same principle (funding on need) and seemingly had the Gonski stamp of approval.
While the Greens sounded open to the government plan, they then issued an ambitious list of demands to improve it: more money, a national school resources body, faster acceleration of funding for needier schools, and an element of compulsion on the states to boost their funding. They’ve branded it the Genuine Gonski.
We now have Labor and the Australian Education Union (AEU) demanding “the full Gonski”, the Turnbull government offering “Gonski 2.0”, and the Greens preferring “the Genuine Gonski”. I give, you give, we all give a Gonski, apparently.
The problem with the debate now is that all three can claim to be implementing needs-based funding, but they can’t win the argument by claims to fidelity to Gonski.
Gonski recommended lifting schools to a school resource standard by the federal, state and territory governments “negotiating more balanced funding roles”, including greater federal responsibility for government schools and greater state responsibility for non-government schools.
That was to be achieved with “a governance framework that gives certainty and stability around expected future funding levels for schools from all government sources”.
The Turnbull government argues that they’re giving an extra $18bn over 10 years and increasing their share of funding to a set proportion of the resource standard (20% for public schools, 80% for non-government), giving certainty and distributing money on need.
Labor and the AEU argue that the Turnbull plan strips $22bn from planned funding increases over 10 years and with the federal government leaving states to their own devices there is no cooperation between federal and state governments and no guarantee schools will reach the required standard.
The Greens have latched on to a recommendation the government has no intention of implementing (the school resource body) and suggested making the policy more progressive by accelerating the timeframe for schools to reach the set proportion of the resource standard to five years not 10.
We don’t yet know what the Coalition is prepared to offer to get Greens support, and whether or what the Greens would settle for. If they strictly adhere to those demands, it will require increased funding, or a worse funding growth trajectory for Catholic and other non-government schools, both politically difficult for the government.
But regardless of where they land, the debate cannot proceed on the basis of who is Gonskier. With three purported Gonski plans in the mix the debate must shift to hard facts – like how much we’re prepared to spend on schools – and principles – like how best to distribute that funding to the neediest.
Labor and the AEU should be arguing their extra $22bn will be well spent, not just that it was promised in “Gonski agreements”. The Coalition must stop using Gonski as a human shield because they risk the Greens outflanking them with greater fidelity to his report. The Greens have a solid argument that it’s more progressive to catch needier schools up more quickly than the Turnbull plan but insistence on every Gonski recommendation is unrealistic and will lead them to block the policy regardless of whatever concessions they win.
There are no Gonskis left to give – it’s time to get on with a debate about which policy works.
