_Australia’s wealthiest private schools continue receiving public funding despite mounting budget pressures, raising questions about whether government spending on education reflects need and the broader public interest.

_

“When I read that $800 toothbrushes are selling out, I wonder if times are as tough as we are led to believe”.

This odd statement from a recent letter to the Sydney Morning Herald struck a chord. When economists warn about global economic turmoil and a perfect storm of debt, it is tempting to seize on any sign that this alarm may be overblown.

The federal Treasurer deserves credit for the way he spells out the pressures on the Budget and the need for savings. In these circumstances, however, I admit to having my own version of the “$800 toothbrush”: the fact that our governments go on providing the annual windfall of millions of dollars to high-fee, high-resource private schools that do not need it.

This tempts me to tell myself that it will be time enough to worry when governments decide things have got so tough that they can no longer afford this rort.

Australia is one of the only countries (if not the only one) with no limit to the private income and wealth a private school can amass while remaining entitled to public funding.

This dates back to a political ambush in 1973.  To secure recurrent funding for the Catholic and public schools most students attended, the Whitlam government was forced by the then Country Party to extend public funding to the small number of high-fee, mostly Protestant, schools.

Despite this partisan, sectarian origin, these payments have survived under successive federal, state and territory governments in various guises … as a separate funding category, a ‘basic grant’, the base amount on a funding continuum … and now, as the minimum public contribution towards the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) of all schools – a legacy of PM Gillard’s decision, ahead of the Gonski Review, that its findings should produce “no losers”.

The total amount of recurrent grants to these schools is not readily available to the public.  If it were, we could translate it into average teacher salaries and see how many teachers could be working in under-resourced schools with students who have far greater needs, instead of going towards the smaller class sizes these elite schools like to advertise.

Some will argue that removing these grants from schools charging fees twice the amount of their SRS entitlement will not result in significant savings to the federal Budget.

The truth is that even if cutting public funding to such schools would not amount to a significant saving to the Budget, this payment would still not be justified.

The Budget is not just about dollars; it is about the kind of society we want to be.

Government policies send a signal.  The Albanese government has taken some steps towards a better and fairer school system. But persisting with public funding for the most lavishly resourced private schools sends the opposite message: that it considers some students are entitled to a higher level of resources for their schooling than the rest of their peers.  It signals confusion between need and greed.

Taking on the wealth, status and religious interests behind these schools carries political risk.

But not doing so sits awkwardly with a government that will rein in spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme while promoting extravagance and waste on the most privileged end of the school system.

Privatisation of schooling has been accelerating since the Howard Government was elected in 1996, and no one expects a Coalition or One Nation government to touch funding for the ‘top’ private schools.

Where all parties do agree is that many Australian households are now under extreme pressure in meeting rising costs for day-to-day living – for fuel, groceries, housing.

This is the time to remove the subsidy to private schools with income from fees alone at twice their SRS entitlement, as well as their charity status.

All reforms to the school system, however minor, must be managed in ways that avoid damaging or disrupting the education of the students in all schools. High-fee schools which claim that loss of their public subsidy will cause such damage or disruption should be offered an appeal process that would include a thorough audit of their financial operation and, where necessary, access to actuarial support and a panel of education experts to assist them in arranging their private resources more efficiently and effectively.  If necessary, they could be given a year to make the necessary changes.  The costs of this process would then be met by the school over time.

Major reform to Australia’s school system is now a national priority.  It is a system geared to widening inequality and straining social cohesion, while its performance against comparable countries continues to slide. It is a system that does not reflect the egalitarian image that we like to present to the world.

There is overwhelming evidence of the need for governments to commit to the long-term reform needed to achieve a school system geared to supporting the work of teachers and students in their classrooms.  This will require better management of demographics, school planning, funding, buildings and facilities, and teacher education, while increasing the supply of teachers and ensuring their fairer distribution among schools. 

Compared with these challenges, cutting funding for a handful of elite private schools is a minor issue. But a Labor government that won’t take this step does not inspire confidence that it will be committed to taking on the more significant, longer-term fight against socio-economic segregation between schools, growing privatisation and the marginalisation of public schools as a pillar of democracy.

Given the state of the world and the growing pressures on families to meet rising costs, responsible governments surely now have a responsibility to direct every available dollar for schooling on fortifying the public schools that all children and young people can access - wherever they live and whatever their family circumstances.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.