The Reports: Waiting for Gonski (Part 3)


cc licensed ( BY NC SD ) flickr photo shared by Oberazzi

Have you read the reports commissioned by the Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling panel? I will briefly outline the ‘research questions’ each report was trying to answer or assess for the panel. My purpose is to clearly understand the scope of each paper before analysing their findings in another blog post.

1. Firstly, the (ACER) report Assessment of Current Process Targeting Schools Funding to Disadvantaged Students was endeavouring to advise on:

  • How do existing programs seeking to address educational disadvantage in schools work?
  • Are existing programs effective in reducing the impact of disadvantage on educational outcomes?
  • What alternative funding approaches should be considered?

2. The (Allen Consulting Group), Feasibility of a National Schooling Recurrent Resource Standard  asks:

3. The Deloitte Access Economics, Assessing existing funding models for schooling in Australia report approach has three components to its assessment of existing funding models for schooling in Australia:

  • Development of a funding model assessment framework
  • Characterisation and consolidation of funding models
  • Application of the assessment framework

4. The Nous Group report, Schooling Challenges and Opportunities aims to do three things:

  • understand what is contributing to good or bad performance by our schools and why
  • understand the degree of ‘lift’ needed in our schooling system and why this is important
  • offer advice on what we know works to lift school performance, which in turn suggests where resources and effort should be concentrated in the future

Your thoughts on the scope of the reports?

 The Eye of the Future; Waiting for Gonski (Part 2)

Conclusions: Waiting for Gonski (Part 4)

Share

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed at this site are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.

2 Comments

  1. Philip Argy:

    Agree with the call for a more open and robust debate, but I now believe that the Gonski review is simply an expensive mechanism to justify a wind-back of funding to the non-government school sector, and is not at all about recommendig a funding structure which promotes excellence in educational outcomes, as the Terms of Reference require.

    If you had the facility to include screenshots in blog posts I would illustrate but I invite you and your readers to conduct this exercise for yourselves: compare the second paragraph of the Purpose section of the official Terms of Reference for the Review with the first paragraph of the Introduction to the Paper on Commissined Research – what I call the fifth 31 August paper.

    What you will realise when you place the texts side by side is that a re-interpretation of the terms of reference has ocurred which totally changes the aims of the Review and, in my view, renders invalid the commissioned research which has been briefed on that false premise.

    If we could have a discussion that methodically traduced the official terms of reference that would be productive; regrettably, in my opinion, the Gonski panel seems to have departed its brief to an extent that is material and serious.

    • Darcy Moore:

      Thanks for commenting Phillip. I am not sure that I can see your point. The second paragraph you mention says:

      “The review’s recommendations will be directed towards achieving a funding system for the period beyond 2013 which is transparent, fair, financially sustainable and effective in promoting excellent educational outcomes for all Australian students.”

      and the ‘fifth’ paper:

      “The Review of Funding for Schooling aims to achieve a funding system which is transparent, equitable, financially sustainable and effective in providing an excellent education for all Australian students, and which ensures that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.”

      Except to say that the second passage goes further in qualifying what is meant by ‘excellent outcomes for all Australians”.

      I want equity, and high quality, not any reductions in funding. For Australia to be so far below the OECD average in spending on Education is a national disgrace IMHO. I will post Pt 4 shortly.

Post a Comment

*
* (will not be published)


× 2 = four

Random Posts

LOAD MORE
UA-6171563-2