Actividad 1: encuestas a los moradores de la zona

Introduction

The 2008–09 Budget is a transition budget for school education, with elements of the former government’s policies remaining or ‘redirected’ to fund the Rudd Government’s budget measures, which are the result of election commitments. With legislation for the new schools funding quadrennium for 2009 to 2012 due this year, the schools funding agreements with the states and territories yet to be finalised, and the Rudd Government’s commitment to retain the current system of funding for non-government schools until 2012, the future direction of Australian Government funding for schools remains to be seen.

Schools funding A note on Budget data

The Budget continues the pattern of Commonwealth support for schools. According to

Budget Paper No. 1, of the estimated $9.6 billion allocated to schools in 2008–09, 67 per cent will be provided to non-government schools.70 The table of expenses by function and sub- function in Budget Paper No. 1 provides an estimated $6.4 billion for non-government schools and $3.1 billion for government schools.71 These figures vary slightly from those in

Budget Paper No. 3 which show $3.5 billion for government schools and $6.5 billion for non- government schools.72

It is not clear from the budget papers exactly how much money will be allocated for government and non-government schools by line item because the payments for schools for 2008–09 have yet to be determined. Hence, while the Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) indicate a total of $7.7 billion for General Recurrent Grants (GRGs), in Table B.3 in Budget

69. Budget Paper No. 2, op. cit., pp. 326–27. 70. Budget Paper No. 1 , op. cit., p. 6–43. 71. ibid.

72. Australian Government, ‘Part 3: Payments for Specific Purposes’, Budget Paper No. 3: Australia’s Federal Relations, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2008, p. 101.

Budget Review 2008–09

Paper No. 3, only $985 million is apparently allocated for GRGs to government schools (compared to $1.8 billion in 2007–08) and $2.9 billion for non-government schools (compared to $5.3 billion in 2007–08).73 Similarly, for capital grants, the PBS indicates a total of $473.5 million, while Budget Paper No. 3 indicates an allocation of $165 million in capital grants to government schools (compared to $528.5 million in 2007–08) and $93 million to non-government schools (compared to $237.2 million in 2007–08).74 Nevertheless, it should be expected that there will be some reduction in the capital funding line item because of the cessation of the Investing in Our Schools Programme. There is also a similar discrepancy in the figures for targeted programs; and the National Partnership Payments are not disaggregated by school sector.

There is also some confusion about the funding increase for schools as indicated by the figures in Budget Paper No. 1 which appear to indicate that funding for schools is only increasing by 0.3 per cent from 2007–08 to 2008–09, compared to a percentage increase of 8.8 per cent for the previous financial year.75 However, if the figures from the PBS are applied, the increase is in the order of 9.9 per cent.76

It should also be noted that the tabulations for estimated payments for education to the states for 2008–09 in Table B.3 of Budget Paper No. 3 are incorrect because figures in the totals column have been counted twice.

Policy settings

The Rudd Government has committed to retaining the existing system of GRGs to non- government schools (the SES system) until 2012, but has promised to conduct a public review of its operation.77 Meanwhile, in response to funding anomalies in the SES system, the Budget provides an additional $16 million over four years from 2007–08 for Orthodox Jewish schools.78

73. Australian Government, Portfolio Budget Statements 2008–09: Budget related paper No. 1.5, Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2008, p. 43; and Australian Government, ‘Appendix B: Payments to the States’, Budget Paper No. 3: Australia’s Federal Relations, op. cit., pp. 100–101.

74. ‘Appendix B: Payments to the States’, Budget Paper No. 3: Australia’s Federal Relations, op. cit.

75. ‘Statement 6: Expenses and Net Capital Investment’, Budget Paper No. 1, op. cit.

76. Portfolio Budget Statements 2008–09: Budget related paper No. 1.5, Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio, op. cit., pp. 43–44.

77. P. Kelly, ‘Gillard to end school inequality’, The Australian, 15 March 2008, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITA TION_ID:VLWP6%3B, accessed on 15 May 2008.

78. S. Smith (Shadow Minister for Education and Training), Federal Labor commits to address the funding needs of Jewish schools, media release, Parliament House, Canberra, 10 August 2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressrel&Criteria=CITA TION_ID:OBSO6%3B, accessed on 15 May 2008. For an explanation of Australian Government GRGs for schools, see M. Harrington, Australian Government General Recurrent Grants for Schools—A Brief Explanation, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2007,

The government is also intent on determining the socio-economic status of government schools for funding purposes. The Council of Australian Governments has agreed:

… to the development of a national partnership agreement focused on the particular educational needs of low socio-economic status school communities. This partnership will form part of the national education funding agreement to be introduced at the beginning of 2009.79

Some stakeholders are disappointed about the funding for schools allocated in this Budget.80 In particular, since 2001 four reports have drawn attention to the problems of primary school resourcing, for both government and non-government schools. Two of these reports concluded that many government and non-government primary schools, particularly those serving disadvantaged communities, did not have sufficient resources to meet the

.81

The Australian Primary Principals Association has called for government primary school GRGs to be increased to the same percentage of Average Government School Recurrent Cost index (AGSRC) as government secondary school GRGs.82 Currently, government primary schools are funded at 8.9 per cent of the primary AGSRC amount, compared to government secondary schools which are funded at 10 per cent of the secondary AGSRC amount. Based on 2007 government primary school enrolments and the 2007 primary AGSRC amount, such a proposed increase would amount to an estimated additional $115 million dollars per annum. Another funding need which has received some attention, and which has not been responded to in this Budget, is additional funding for students with disabilities. According to the Independent Schools Council of Australia, independent schools ‘are not adequately resourced by governments to meet their legislated obligations’ under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.83 The National Catholic Education Commission has called for more federal government funding for students with disabilities to ensure that all such students receive comparable funding ‘irrespective of the school they attend’. It also advocated that, ‘as an

http://libiis1/Library_Services/electoralatlas/SchoolGrants/Explanation.htm, accessed on 15 May 2008.

79. Communiqué, Council of Australian Governments’ Meeting, 26 March 2008, p. 4, http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/Draft_Comminque_(v5).pdf, accessed on 15 May 2008.

80. For example, see Australian Education Union, Federal Budget fails test for public education, media release, VIC, 13 May 2008,

http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Media/MediaReleases/2008/1305.pdf, accessed on 15 May 2008. 81. Australian Primary Principals Association (APPA), Delivering Better Educational Outcomes in

Australian Primary Schools: Submission to the Commonwealth Minister for Education Regarding Quadrennial Funding for 2009–2012, APPA, Kaleen, ACT, 2008, p. 1, http://www.appa.asn.au/cms/uploads/reports/fundingpaper20080316.pdf, accessed on 15 May 2008.

82. ibid., p. 9.

83. Independent Schools Council of Australia, Independent Update, Issue 6, 2007, http://www.isca.edu.au/html/PDF/Indep_Updates/IndUpdate%206-07%20-%20colour.pdf, accessed on 15 May 2008.

Budget Review 2008–09

interim measure’, funding of students with disabilities be equivalent to 65 per cent of the cost of educating such a student in a government school.84 Primary school principals have also reported ‘grossly insufficient’ resourcing for students with disabilities and that many of these students do not qualify for disability funding.85 In 2006 the previous government committed $5.8 million for a project to investigate funding arrangements for student with disabilities— Investigating the Feasibility of Flexible Funding for Students with Disability. However, no information on the project’s progress has yet been made available.86

Schools Programs

The budget measures for schools programs reflect a shift in policy focus. The previous government introduced a range of programs that provided funding directly to individuals and school communities. These programs attracted criticism for various reasons because they bypassed state and territory education authorities, were considered as not addressing the total pedagogical needs of students or were too narrow in their application and benefit. The exception was the Investing in Our Schools Programme, which proved very popular with both government and non-government schools.87

Now these programs, either because they have ceased (such as the Investing in Our Schools Programme) or had their funds ‘redirected’ (for example, the National Literacy and Numeracy Vouchers Program, Summer Schools for Teachers and Rewarding Schools for Improving Literacy and Numeracy Outcomes), have given way in this Budget to broadly based programs that have been developed in partnership with the states and territories. These new programs include the Digital Education Revolution, the National Action Plan for Literacy and Numeracy and Trade Training Centres in Schools.

The future of some existing programs remains unclear, notably the Australian Technical Colleges.88 The government is considering how such colleges will be integrated into the

84. National Catholic Education Commission, What are Catholic School Communities Seeking from Political Parties in the 2007 Election?,

http://www.ncec.catholic.edu.au/pages/images/NCEC_election_flyer%202007%20- %20colour.pdf, accessed on 15 May 2008.

85. M. Angus, H. Olney and J. Ainley, In the Balance: The Future of Australia’s Primary Schools, Australian Primary Principals Association, 2007, p. xi,

http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/99B2BFB1-FEB1-45BF-A89E-

0575D1231705/18936/FinalSRAPS38Aug2007.pdf, accessed on 15 May 2008.

86. For more information see the Investigating the Feasibility of Flexible Funding for Students with Disability website,

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/programme_cat egories/special_needs_disadvantage/flexible_funding_students_with_disability.htm, accessed on 15 May 2008.

87. For more information see the IOSP website, http://www.investinginourschools.dest.gov.au/, accessed on 15 May 2008.

88. For more information see the Australian Technical Colleges website, http://www.australiantechnicalcolleges.gov.au/, accessed on 15 May 2008.

education system once their current funding agreements expire at the end of 2009.89 There is also some question about the future of Teaching Australia, established by the previous government to develop national professional standards.90 The Budget contains an announcement that Teaching Australia will be reviewed and that, while the review is underway, its funding will be reduced and its activities ‘constrained’.91

In contrast to the other school education budget measures, the Education Tax Refund directly targets individuals. However it is not a true tax offset, whereby it would reduce the level of a person’s tax payable, as its name implies. Rather, it is considered a refundable tax offset and will apply to eligible applicants regardless of their tax liability. That is, it will also be paid if the person has no tax liability. While the rebate has been welcomed, there may be some question about its timing and delivery. The rebate applies to expenses incurred from 1 July 2008 and its first claiming is linked to assessment of a 2008–09 income tax return. There are problems in providing assistance by way of tax rebates and this delay may be problematic for some eligible disadvantaged families.92 For example, it is for this reason that the Child Care Tax Rebate will in future be paid quarterly rather than annually.