On Thursday, federal Education Minister Jason Clare introduced a school funding bill to parliament.
The bill aims to set a new “floor” for how much the federal government contributes towards public school funding in Australia.
It would mean the Commonwealth has to contribute at least 20% of the schooling resource standard (how much funding a school needs to meet students’ educational needs) for public schools each year in all states and territories from 2025.
Clare argues it will provide “certainty” to schools, but it also comes in the middle of a standoff between the federal government and some states over school funding policy.
What’s in the bill?
The bill proposes to change the current arrangement, under which the Commonwealth contributes 20% to the schooling resource standard of public schools. As the government explains:
This means the 20 per cent will become the minimum, not the maximum, the Commonwealth contributes to public schools.
The Albanese government says the bill will increase “transparency and accountability” and ensure funding cannot go backwards.
But it cannot be certain of parliamentary support – Greens and independent senators are among those pushing for the government to provide more funding for public schools than is currently on the table.
The bigger picture
The bill also comes as the federal government is still trying to sign off new deals with some of the states and territories about their public school funding for next year.
The current agreements will run out at the end of the year. While the new proposed arrangements would increase the federal contribution, it’s not by as much as some states want.
So far, Clare has made agreements with Western Australia and Tasmania to increase the federal contribution from 20% to 22.5%. For the Northern Territory it will increase funding to a 40% contribution by 2029.
So far, it has not signed deals with New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia, which are pushing for a federal contribution of 25%.
The Australian Capital Territory is also yet to sign, despite its public schools receiving at least 100% of the schooling resource standard (via both federal and its own funds) for several years now.
Clare set a deadline of September 30 for the holdout states to sign on for the 2.5% funding boost, or risk losing an extra A$16 billion in funding. But that has passed without any compromise from either side.
Progress and politics
At the very least, the introduction of the bill to federal parliament is symbolically significant, particularly in light of the Commonwealth’s willingness to increase its contribution to the school resource standard of public schools.
But politics is never far away in school funding policy. Critics could argue the bill is more of a box-ticking exercise, rather than substantive reform. Indeed, the change in wording to a 20% minimum was inevitable given the specifics of the funding agreements already signed with Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.
Critics might also point out national school funding policy is currently a bit of a mess, with four of the five most populous Australian states ignoring the government’s new funding deal. And they could remind us this agreement has already been delayed by a year. The previous one expired at the end of 2023 and was extended for 12 months by the Albanese government.
What happens to schools next year?
The bill does nothing to bring the holdout states any closer to signing on to the new funding agreement.
But this does not mean the federal government will withdraw its funding when school starts next year. Instead, the current funding arrangements will continue for another 12 months. This is why Clare says $16 billion in “additional investment” is on the table for public schools.
With a federal election due next year, it is even possible there will be no resolution before Australians go to the polls. This continues the fight over the schooling resource standard funding for public schools, which has has been ongoing since the so-called Gonski Review was made public in 2012.
Matthew P. Sinclair does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
