Schooling federalism: evaluating the options for reform

The most efficient way to run, fund and regulate primary and secondary schools in Australia is for the State and Territory Governments to have sole responsibility. Background Australian federalism has evolved significantly since Federation in 1901. There is now extensive, contested concurrency in Commonwealth and State or Territory government roles and responsibilities, particularly in the schooling portfolio, where it has effectively moved from being a state responsibility to a shared responsibility. The degree of national government involvement in schooling is unprecedented and higher than that of any other federal government in the world. Uncoordinated decision-making, a mismatch in revenue versus responsibilities, and unhelpful overlap in some roles has contributed to the exacerbation of disadvantage and inequities, limiting the effectiveness of government funding and programs. This poses dire consequences for individual students and the nation. This change was not by design. But its reform can be. The White Paper on the Reform of the Federation was established to investigate federalism reform in a range of portfolios characterised by complex, counterproductive and inconsistent government roles; propose and consult on a range of reform options; and set out a platform for improvement. It is led by a Taskforce located within the Prime Minister’s department, overseen by an intergovernmental steering committee and expert advisory panel. Evaluating the options for reform In June 2015, four options for reform to government roles and responsibilities in the schooling portfolio were leaked and later publicly released by the Taskforce. These options were the product of discussions with stakeholders, all the States and Territories, and the Prime Minister’s Expert Advisory Panel. 1. States and Territories fully responsible for all schools 2. States and Territories responsible for funding public schools and the Commonwealth responsible for funding nongovernment schools. States remain responsible for delivery education in government schools and the regulatory framework for all schools. 3. Reduced Commonwealth involvement in school programs 4. The Commonwealth is the dominant funder of all students on an equal and consistent basis, but States and Territories maintain other current responsibilities, including regulatory framework and provision of public schools. The reform plan put forward by the Taskforce in the final White Paper must be within the current constitutional framework (meaning constitutional change is not required). Purpose of this paper This paper evaluates these four options against the criteria established by Australia’s governments. It also considers the feasibility and desirability of each option. In doing so, it seeks to enhance understanding of federalism in schooling, and to contribute to public debate on the reform options under consideration by the leaders of Australia’s governments

New approaches to persistent problems in Australia’s schools

This report presents four propositions to accelerate transformation in Australia’s schools. Summary In November 2013, the Mitchell Institute hosted a policy forum titled New approaches to persistent problems attended by approximately 100 of Australia’s leading educators, researchers, policy makers and leaders. The discussion was chaired by Mark Burford, Executive Director of the Mitchell Institute and led by an expert panel comprising: Kathryn Greiner, member of the 2010 Commonwealth Government’s Schools Funding Review Panel; Professor John Hattie, Director of the Melbourne Education Research Institute at the University of Melbourne; Dr Lisa O’Brien, CEO of The Smith Family; and Dr Yong Zhao, Professor in the College of Education at the University of Oregon. The forum report, New approaches to persistent problems in Australia’s schools, outlines the key themes and discussions that emerged during the forum and presents four propositions to accelerate transformation in Australia’s schools

Federalism and schooling reforms in Australia

© 2016 Dr. Bronwyn Ann HinzThis thesis reveals how federalism has shaped schooling reforms and policy making processes in Australia, a portfolio characterized by extensive and contested overlap of state and Commonwealth government roles. This is done through qualitative case studies of two landmark reforms from the 1990s - Victoria’s Schools of the Future reforms and the Commonwealth’s Choice and Equity reforms – based upon semi-structured interviews with policy actors and documentary analysis of material from personal and institutional archives, parliament, media, government and other sources. The thesis traces each of these reforms from their origins through to their implementation with the decisions, motivations and obstacles faced by policy makers examined at each ‘stage’ of the policy making process. Next, the lens is widened to encompass the broader and dynamic intergovernmental context in which each reform was pursued, to consider the direct and indirect ways each reform and the policy making process were shaped by Australian federalism. This is the first close-range, comparative, multi-level qualitative study of schooling reforms from an intergovernmental perspective in Australia. The thesis contributes new knowledge and a deeper understanding of these landmark reforms, of the operation of Australia’s federal system, and of the dominant models of federalism and policy making. This thesis finds that while each reform was pursued unilaterally, each reform was also significantly and indirectly shaped by features of Australia’s federal system. Contrary to widely held views on the restrictive nature of tied grants and perverse effects of overlapping roles, the study found the Victorian government possessed policy autonomy and the capacity to innovate in their response to what they considered state issues. Tied grants from the Commonwealth helped rather than hindered reform. The Victorian reforms were also enhanced by the spread of policy ideas, movement of policy actors and the availability of comparative data on school spending and outcomes in other states. These findings indicate the existence of a policy ‘laboratory’ and the protective ‘insurance’ effects of overlap, two claimed advantages of federal systems. The Commonwealth likewise pursued its reform package unilaterally in line with its own analysis of the policy problem and its own policy agenda. Yet the Commonwealth’s new school funding model was derived from models already in operation at state level, and constitutional provisions meant that the Commonwealth relied on state cooperation to implement its reforms. Vertical fiscal imbalance in its favour enabled the Commonwealth to provide funding to private schools beyond their estimated need. This constitutional, fiscal and political settlement contributed to what was ultimately a sub-optimal policy decision, poor resource allocation and slow, partial implementation. Simultaneous to the Choice and Equity reforms, the Commonwealth unilaterally reengineered tied grants for schooling to the states to make them more prescriptive and punitive, and attempted to extract other school funding from the states. The Commonwealth had very limited success in both instances of coercion. Conversely, evidence of highly productive collaboration was found in the case of the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling for the Twenty-first Century. These findings demonstrate that the coordinate and cooperative models of federalism, as well as the collaborative and competitive models of intergovernmental relations, are simplistic and unrealistic reflections of the fluidity and complexity of intergovernmental relations and governance in each of the case studies. The use of these models risks imposing unproductive and artificial boundaries on policy thinking and practices. The thesis supports a reconceptualisation of Australian federalism as concurrent federalism, which recognizes that policy actors act unilaterally and pragmatically in pursuit of their own policy goals within a shared policy sphere, but are still shaped by the contours and institutions of Australia’s federal system. This term also allows for the fact that intergovernmental relations took a variety of forms simultaneously – combative relations on one issue did not prevent constructive work on other issues. This was much more dynamic than previously conceived. This flexibility of Australia’s federal system is likely to be of value in the face of the increasing complexity of public policy problems. Furthermore, the thesis finds that models of policy making, such as the Australian Policy Cycle (Bridgman and Davis 1998) and the ‘streams, entrepreneurs and windows of opportunity’ model (Kingdon 1984), are useful analytical tools in a federal system, even where their descriptive value differed in relation to the two case studies. Findings from this study indicate that state governments are more effective at developing and implementing schooling reforms. Concurrency, tied grants, intergovernmental comparisons and movement of policy actors and ideas can enhance policy making processes and the policy laboratory effect to maximize policy responsiveness and effectiveness. But these benefits are undermined when tied grants become prescriptive and punitive, especially if the conditions are determined unilaterally by the Commonwealth

Can we afford free public education?

If you\u27re a parent of a public school student who\u27s paying for all the extras like excursions, laptops or more books for the library you might question the idea that public schools are free. But the idea of school fees for public education has proven to be politically unviable. A leaked discussion paper from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet sets out four possible scenarios for school funding. One scenario, that wealthy parents pay a fee for public schools, has already been ruled out by the federal government. The other three scenarios still up for consideration propose major changes to the balance of responsibility for schools between the States and the federal government. Given the exhaustive Gonski Review process, further changes to the way schools are funded are of concern, especially to State governments who already face a funding shortfall after 2017. Audio duration: 20\u27 15

Quality Early Education for All : Fostering creative, entrepreneurial, resilient and capable learners

Fact Shee