Federal and state public school funding

You can make statistics say anything. Public school advocates have been pretty noisy in the press lately about federal funding for public schools. It looks like the union hacks have decided what the message is going to be, and the pundits are singing along obediently. It's this: the federal government funds private schools more generously than public schools, and this is Disgusting. I've heard this song in newspaper opinion columns and most recently from the lips of a public school principal appearing on a television debate.

Somehow, they forget to mention that funding public schools is a State responsibility and any Federal funds are a bonus. The federal government could, and probably should, cancel all public school funding right now in an effort to remind people that it's a state responsibility and political pressure should therefore be directed at that level. (Federal funding also comes with a lot of conditions, which I find odious.)

So why do private schools get federal funding? Because the states have historically neglected to fund private schools. Fair enough, I suppose. But in the 1960s (I think) the Catholic education system got in such a financial "situation" that the feds decided to prop it up in the interests of both the kids being educated and the state systems that couldn't possibly cope with the surge if the Catholic schools collapsed.

So who gets what and why? Public schools are funded by State governments. Private schools get some federal money because private school parents are taxpayers who deserve to have some taxpayer money spent on their kids' education. Public schools also get some federal money because – as far as I can tell – the federal government wants to influence education in various ways (flying flagpoles, the teaching of history, displaying "values" posters, school reports) and can only achieve its objectives through bribery.

Now I'm short on the facts (at least I'm honest!) but however you dice it, I'm 99.5% sure that the most important thing remains true: public schools receive significantly more public money per student than private schools. That's as it should be. It doesn't matter whether that public money comes from Canberra or Sydney. I desperately wish that the federal government would take full responsibility for education and implement a transparent funding formula for all schools so that we could have a proper debate about the appropriate balance between public and private school funding. But wishing for a transparent debate sounds naïve given the anything-but-transparent tosh written and spoken by the pundits. As a teacher, I value clear and rational thinking; in this, they disappoint me.

Some related points worth making:

• The pundits are certainly aware of this and are playing a political game to try and extract more money from Canberra for their cause. That's fair enough, in a sense. But as I said, I expect better standards of advocacy from teachers and resent the fact that they play into the stereotypes of teachers being unprofessional third-rate hacks.
• Although I'd like to see government involvement in education simplified and rationalised, I have reservations about the proposed national curriculum. There are certainly positives and negatives there, which may be examined in a future article.
• Another line in The Song goes something like this: federal funding of private schools has declined, as a percentage of all federal education funding, in the 10 years John Howard has been in power. Well, that's because, in that 10 years, we've seen less people going to public schools and more people going to private schools. Simple, isn't it?

Update 19 March: The Sydney Morning Herald has this information in an article today:

Funding for primary and secondary schools for 2009-12 is already $42 billion. The bulk of public school funding comes from the states, with the Federal Government kicking in between 10 and 14 per cent on average.

But independent and private schools are assessed on a complicated mix of socio-economic data, which means some schools are receiving 70 per cent of their funding from the Federal Government.

Non-news items on the ABC

Normally, you can count on the ABC to present interesting and important stories in its radio current affairs programs AM and PM. In the last week, however, two things have taken up an unjustifiable amount of airtime. If it's a slow news day, I'd rather they just admit that and play some music.

First was that Indonesian air crash in which about five Australians died (and one escaped with a cut lip and flew again within hours). Don't get me wrong: it's an important and tragic story. But one or two days after the event it was still the headline article in PM, with at least 10 minutes devoted to it. What was "new" or "current" about the story (it being a news and current affairs program)? That Cynthia Bantham, who survived the crash but with serious injuries, had been transported to Perth hospital. In other words, nothing. The story was endless boring rehash. Again, don't get me wrong. The story made me feel (again) very sorry for all involved. But it went on for too long. It's easy to understand why: Cynthia Bantham is a respected journalist. Other casualties were journos and public servants. The media loves a story about its own and those they work with. The audience (me) feels used. A relevant current affairs story about the plane crash would look at the history of such disasters in Indonesia or something.

Strike two occurred yesterday on AM. Santo Santoro, a federal senator, was in technical breach of the government's long-discredited ministerial standards. As minister for Aged Care and Something Else, he should have registered or disposed of his shares in some biotech company (because it competes for government funds for research into miracle cures for old people) as soon as he became minister. But guess what? He didn't! At first I thought there was something to this story, but then came the boring facts. He wasn't caught: he discovered the holdings and disposed of them straight away; and donated the profits to charity. In other words, he did the honourable thing and no real possibility of improper conduct is apparent. Next story! But nooooo.... I have to sit in traffic and listen to what sounds like some juniour journo's first assignment, interviewing a Labor MP asking what he thinks should be Mr. Santoro's fate. Then asking the question again, slightly differently. Then replaying an interview with Santoro. OH. MY. GOD. HOW. BORING.

Luckily for them, by that afternoon a spark of genuine controversy had been found within this dead horse of a story. The charity he donated to was no real charity at all. It was a Queensland organisation called "Focus on the Family" or somesuch; a non-profit organisation that lobbies politicians to outlaw abortion, po'nography, etc. It claims, reasonably credibly, to be politically non-aligned, but it's hard to avoid the perception that Santoro's donation was politically tainted. He should have exercised better judgement, that's for sure, but no hanging offence was committed.

In summary, ABC, please keep your current affairs stories in proportion and perspective.

Update 19 March: Santo Santoro has since been sacked after several more dodgy share transactions were revealed. That doesn't change my opinion above. The media were right to investigate, but that doesn't excuse boring broadcasting.