Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The education of young people is one of the most important responsibilities facing every nation. While many decisions we make in parliament are focused primarily on the here and now the decisions we make about schooling form the foundation for the future of our nation and so it is with the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008.

The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 has been described by some as a simple change or an interim measure until a full review of funding is made by 2011. However, this bill is much more than that. It contains within it an indication of what this government’s policy is going to be both for public and non-government schooling in coming years. Broadly speaking government schools are funded by the states while non-government schools are funded by the Commonwealth. However, some federal money does go to government schools and currently these funds, along with those for non-government schools, are handled together under the arrangements of the Schools Assistance Act. These arrangements end at the end of this year.

This bill seeks to stipulate funding arrangements for the period 2009 to 2012. However, it also represents a significant change in the way that Commonwealth funding is delivered to schools. The future funding for government schools will be provided through the National Education Agreement, or NEA, which is currently being negotiated with COAG, and I note the agreements reached at the COAG meeting last Saturday. Meanwhile the future funding arrangements for non-government schools are to be separated as stipulated in this bill. The main features of the bill are new reporting requirements, which will include information on performance, finances and programs. The government claims that the bill aligns the requirements for both government and non-government schools, which will allow for greater transparency and accountability across the sectors.

The bill also makes non-government school funding conditional on the implementation of the national curriculum. New funding arrangements for Indigenous students attending non-government schools are provided through the Education Legislation Amendment Bill. Essentially the new funding arrangements will tie funding to the student rather than to programs. The government estimates that this will result in approximately 1,200 more Indigenous students receiving additional support in school. Senator Macdonald has raised some concerns in relation to Indigenous students as to how the funding model is treated. I am very sympathetic to those concerns and I think they need to be adequately addressed in the course of the committee stages of this bill so that those students are not in any way disadvantaged.

The government has also decided to continue the current system of general recurrent funding for non-government schools. This model allocates funding according to the socioeconomic profile of a school community with more funding going to schools in poorer areas. Together, these measures are estimated to provide around $28 billion to non-government schools over the forward estimates period. Let me say at the outset, I believe that with public funding comes public accountability. Schools cannot accept taxpayers’ money without having responsibility back to the taxpayers. However, what this bill highlights is the tension between the independence of non-government schools and the growing dependence of these schools on Commonwealth government funding.

This bill has resulted in more correspondence to my office than any other bill during my short time in this place. In short, the concerns put to me have centred around three clear themes. Firstly, changes in the bill that are tied to recurrent funding for the start of next year, which makes schools fearful that if the bill is not passed promptly they will not be able to pay their teachers to run their schools. Secondly, the requirement for non-government schools to disclose in detail all their funding sources is unnecessary and will result in a greater gap between the sectors. Thirdly, the implementation of a national curriculum will severely restrict the flexibility, diversity and independence of non-government schools.

Let me firstly address the issue of public disclosure of funding sources. This bill, as I read it in its current form, requires non-government schools to disclose all sources of funding and empowers the minister to block funding to schools on a range of grounds including a lack of financial viability. I have reservations about these changes and I had a very good meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Gillard, the minister in charge of this bill, earlier today. I think it needs to be made absolutely clear that, in relation to the sources of funding, whilst the aggregate amount ought to be disclosed—and I think that is fair enough—disclosing the individual sources is something that goes beyond the pale. The unintended consequences of that could be quite severe and I do not believe that is the intention of the government, and I think it is important that that is something that is made clear in the legislative sense during the committee stage.

The lack of confidentiality, for instance, may discourage some donors who prefer discretion, while, on a practical level, the publication of donations may present a hit list for other schools in their fundraising efforts. I feel uncomfortable about these provisions that could potentially penalise schools for being more effective fundraisers. Instead of rewarding effort it may result in pressure to reduce school fees or make it harder to raise funds in the following year. While I do understand and respect the position of the minister in relation to this, in order to ascertain what the aggregate sources of income are—and I think that is the general intent of the government in relation to that—I am looking forward to the committee stage for that to be clarified. I am all for transparency but I am against unintended consequences and, as the legislation currently stands, those requirements with respect to sources, as I read and as others have read the bill, could lead to these unintended consequences. I believe that this issue of privacy of the disclosure of sources is something that needs to be dealt with in the committee stage.

The second issue that concerns me is the implementation of a national curriculum. Like all Australians, I believe it is vital that every student has the basics of reading and writing, of counting and calculating and of thinking and reflecting as well as the skills needed to learn for oneself. However, I also believe that there is need for caution when governments seek to standardise and set a curriculum. There are many headmasters placing demands on our schools and curriculum. Our curriculum needs to be responsive to the demands of the global economy as well as to the demands of local employers. Our curriculum needs to help our young people live in today’s rapidly changing society as well as to prepare for life in a yet unknown future. Our curriculum needs to underpin active democracy as well as to reflect the growing diversity of our citizens. Our curriculum needs to be detailed in its demands but flexible in its delivery.

What concerns me most about the government’s moves to implement a national curriculum is quite simply that we do not know what it will be. Students learn best when they see connections between subjects and the real world but, as yet, we do not know what the subjects will be, let alone what connections will be emphasised. While four initial disciplines have been identified, there is still no detail of what will be taught within them. I can understand the concern of a number of my fellow senators as to why schools should sign up to something that does not yet exist. How can the government make their funding dependent on schools adhering to the unknown?

This has been the subject of ongoing correspondence to and discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister’s office. I have been grateful for the information that has been provided by the Deputy Prime Minister’s office in relation to this but, in essence, the government’s response has been: ‘We will collaborate with the states on government schools and we will consult widely, as we have in the past, and this will take shape.’ I think that is a fair summary. I believe, however, that there ought to be more detail about the manner of consultation. For instance, it is important that, in the absence of providing the curriculum itself, the government crystallise its position on the principles of assessment, the expansion of national testing, the draft guidelines for formulating the national curriculum, the method for this formulation and exactly who is involved and how they are representative of the diverse range of non-government providers. These are the sorts of things that I believe ought to be crystallised in the context of the debate on this bill.

I am concerned that this could undermine the purpose of the non-government schooling sector: to allow for diversity in teaching approaches, choice by parents and differences in curriculum. It should not the role of any minister for education, bureaucrat or academic to be reaching down into the classroom with a big ruler and whacking teachers that do not teach whatever is in fashion in a standardised curriculum. There ought to be some flexibility there. I am not suggesting that that would be the approach of this minister, but I am concerned about giving that sort of power to a particular minister. I think Senator Carr will remember the debate of a few months ago on the issue of the national protocols for higher education. I was convinced by the government’s arguments there that you ought not to penalise higher education institutions if they stray from a one-size-fits-all governance model. It was not about curriculum, but I think there are some parallels with the principle there.

I note the view of the South Australian Primary Principals Association that one of the biggest challenges facing teachers is that the curriculum is already too crowded. I am aware of complaints by teachers that, with every new public crisis, ministers feel required to introduce a new schooling initiative to address it. If enough headlines say: ‘Dog bites child’, it is not long before teachers are required to find time to teach the new ‘dog safety strategy’. I do not say that flippantly; it is an example of the way in which curriculum can be driven.

Whether it be for religious, cultural or philosophical reasons, I believe independent schools need to have the space to teach creatively and diversely. But with public funding comes public accountability. No school should accept taxpayers’ support and then foster religious intolerance, teach homophobia or encourage racism. Neither should they ban computers, neglect basic literacy and numeracy or inadequately prepare students as future citizens. But I also do not think we should be forced to sign schools up to an unknown curriculum. There should at least be some guidelines with respect to that. We need to know what is going to be taught and why. It seems a strange argument to state that what is being taught can be separated from how and why it is being taught. To argue this is to argue for a model of curriculum where a teacher could be replaced by 30 laptops and a sheepdog. If one accepts the argument that a national curriculum will not prescribe ideology or constrain teaching principles, it still raises issues for different curriculum approaches, such as the International Baccalaureate.

My son is currently doing year 11. He is doing an IB course at a non-government school. He is working incredibly hard at it and is finding it very satisfying. It should be noted that my home state of South Australia has been acknowledged as a leader in the take-up of the International Baccalaureate. I think it is a world leader in terms of the number of students that have taken it up, and I have real concerns about the unknown and unintended consequences for the IB and other teaching approaches. I note that the Deputy Prime Minister has publicly stated that courses which have an approach that is based on excellence in education, such as the IB, should not be concerned. But I think it is still important that we have those guidelines and criteria.

I have been assured by the Deputy Prime Minister’s office that the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority will recognise well-established curriculum frameworks, but I believe that there needs to be a crystallisation of the matters that I have raised previously. We need to know how a national curriculum will integrate with an international program that has a broad range of learning areas, including areas of interaction, such as the IB. Does this explain what the implications will be for the international moderation and assessment components of the IB? Does it explain whether IB schools will effectively have to run two curriculums simultaneously? At the moment, we do not have the answers to these questions, other than some broad principles. Again, it has been very useful to have obtained the outline of those principles from the Deputy Prime Minister’s office, and I am grateful for that, but I believe there needs to be further crystallisation.

The final matter that I wish to note is the concern that has been raised about the speed of these changes—about whether it is necessary to deal with this curriculum issue now, in the context of this bill, as well as the basic impact of funding. If the bill does not go through, the funding of non-government schools will be compromised. Basically, it will be cut. In the communication that my office has had with school communities and with independent school associations, it is evident that they are in a bind. They want this bill to go through because of the funding—that is a primary concern—but also some of them are concerned. If this bill requires them to implement a national curriculum that is unfair or that somehow impedes their independence or their ability to deliver the best outcomes for their students, they are not happy about that. It is important that they are not put under that sort of pressure and that they have some comfort and certainty on the issue of a curriculum.

I think we could have had an alternative approach that would have balanced public accountability with independence and flexibility. I refer to a possible resolution that could be found through schools that receive public funding being required to demonstrate adherence to a public charter for schooling. That is something that is being looked at by Professor Alan Reid, a former dean of education at UniSA as well as the head of a recent review of the South Australian Certificate of Education. His current research with the Australian Research Council, as well as his 2003 discussion paper for the Australian Council of Deans of Education, puts forward the notion of a public commons for education. This public commons concept explores the responsibility of government and non-government schools to conform to public values of diversity and inclusivity in return for government funding. While I do not necessarily agreed with Professor Reid’s views, the idea of common resources being used for the common good around common public values is one that would have been worthy of further exploration had there been the time to do so in the processes involved in this bill.

There is a real concern that this bill, by tying funding to a national curriculum, is fundamentally unfair. I have said publicly that, if there is a crystallisation of what the curriculum will be in broad terms, what the processes will be and what time lines are involved, I believe that will give an adequate framework to allay the concerns of those private schools and those private school organisations that have expressed their concern.

I also note the claim made by the government—whether it is fair or not I suppose can be dealt with in the committee stages—that in February 2005 the coalition signed up schools to statements of learning linked to funding and that, at the time, no detail was provided. That is something that no doubt the coalition can reflect on or comment on in terms of what has been put by the government.

I believe that education policy should be about the long-term conditions of schooling, not short-term conditional funding. Education policy should be about better skills, not better spin. Education policy should be about good processes, not old ideology, and education policy should be about planning. I believe that the current bill, in relation particularly to the issue of the curriculum, needs to be better. There should be clarity in relation to the sources of funding. I believe that the government understands those concerns and that it was not the intention of the government to disclose private sources of donations.

Also, in relation to the whole issue of the qualified audit process, there ought to be some criteria by which a qualified audit, which could impact on a school’s funding, should be determined. That is why I believe a fair and equitable mechanism in the circumstances would be for the grounds or the criteria for a qualified audit to be the subject of a disallowable instrument—that is, a legislative instrument that could be the subject of disallowance by the Senate. I believe that would be an adequate and good safeguard in relation to the audit process.

I support the second reading of this bill. I reserve my position in relation to the third reading, but I believe that there are a number of reforms that the government is proposing that have significant potential for increasing accountability and for increasing transparency. These are good things, but I also think we need to be mindful of the concern of the non-government schools to ensure that there are fair outcomes in relation to this bill.