On the funding wars
How oversimplification and tribalism hurt the progress of education equality
It was almost inevitable that Sally Larsen’s research into Australia’s standardised test, NAPLAN, was going to add fuel to the funding war fire. I’m sure that wasn’t the intended point of the research but she found that when adjusted for background, only slight differences in performance were found between public and non-government sectors. Of course this raises questions about the value-add of the private sector. But that’s not what this post is about.
I’m concerned that the oversimplification of the issue is not leading to improved outcomes, and that tribalism takes away airtime from advocating for measures that could potentially improve results. Funding is discussed as a zero sum game, as though money in the pocket of Knox Grammar is directly taken out of the purse of Bidwill. Considering the broad platform of the most vocal advocates, I think it would be helpful to avoid reductive debates and the resulting vitriol.
There are a few ‘tropes’ in this argument that invariably pop up. I’m going to address a few of these and explain why I think they’re unhelpful and distracting. As always, I welcome alternative sources and points of view.
Funding war trope 1: Money leads to improved outcomes
Now I’m not saying this can never change, but so far, the evidence in support of throwing more money at schools just isn’t there. The argument that follows is that more funding pays for more learning support, but the evidence on this is weak. Teaching assistants are a high cost, relatively low impact investment. You can read more here about the no-cost ways to utilise them better. The final part of this trope is that smaller classes are assumed to produce better outcomes. Again, the evidence on this is mixed. For some groups, the effect is positive, but without teacher expertise and shifts in pedagogy, this approach represents a large cost for questionable benefit.
Funding war trope 2: We should buy all the private schools and turn them public
This one would make me laugh if I didn’t see influential people peddle it so often. David Gillespie, in his book Free Schools, writes about the history of Australian school funding. I recommend that every public education advocate read it before wading casually into the debate. Catholic schools solved a supply problem for the government a very long time ago. They’re still solving this problem. Many non-government schools are very affordable, deliberately so.
The most obvious problem with this argument is that utopian thinking, in this case, helps nobody.
Funding war trope 3: Private education produces bad people
This one gets me for a few reasons. The first is like I said above, the homogenous and simplistic view of the make-up of the non-government sector. Other claims are that the successes of students attending private school are all down to nepotism. There are others, from rape culture in schools to the idea that all families drive Range Rovers. I don’t want to give these too much airtime. Just as Marx had a vision without a plan, so do slacktivists.
Funding war trope 4: Private schools exclude students with additional needs
I’m not sure where this one comes from. Anecdotally, I can say that the private system is attracting more students with special educational needs. I couldn’t say exactly why. I worked in special education in public schools and I thought that they offered more specific services. So I’m not commenting on the reasons, but will just say that as far as I know, this is an unsupported claim. It contributes nothing to the debate about equality but distracts from the good work being done in both sectors - work we could learn from and replicate.
Funding war trope 5: Finland does it, why can’t we?
I’m going to state the obvious here, Finland isn’t Australia. If you point out that Finland’s results are on the decline, you’ll be met with comments like, “Well, who cares about PISA anyway!” Nevermind that Finland came to our attention as the gold standard through PISA. Ask those same people if they would also like to pay one of the highest tax rates in the world. These kinds of arguments stand in for actual research on ‘what works’ and at what cost.
Funding war trope 6: The public education system is equitable
Pro-public advocates are quick to point out the success of the public system, as indicated by the strong results in league tables. But the selective system creams the top performers, essentially hot-housing them and creating a kind of tiered system within a system. Many of these students have tutors to ensure strong results, coming from families who really value education and make financial sacrifices in different ways to those paying for private education. I know because I’ve worked privately for some of these families. I’m completely supportive of doing whatever it takes to facilitate achievement, but to pretend that the selective system is a representative sample is either wilfully naive or dishonest.
The other factor that is often ignored is the postcode lottery. I moved my children to a public catchment in a relatively expensive, leafy suburb, knowing the socio-cultural value of a school community who value education and hard work. Not everyone can do this. The financial contributions to some of the flagship public schools are also huge, because the parent community, by and large, can afford them. The public system itself is one of entrenched inequality, so potentially addressing this as a discrete issue could yield more benefit than blanket claims of the success of the system. We could instead look at what’s working well, where, and why.
In the interests of full disclosure, I was publicly educated. My partner and I both grew up with single mothers for a time. I’m the first in my family to study at university. I didn’t get much out of my public education but still believe in principle that a free public education is a good thing. I’ve worked as an educator in public schools, working with our most vulnerable students, and I now work in the independent sector.
The idea that a better-funded public system will produce equitable outcomes is an oversimplification. Divisive arguments don’t help. Tribalism doesn’t help. I suppose the purpose of this post is to encourage a more nuanced discussion than simply trying to Tweet our way to greater equality of outcomes. Perhaps your comments will reflect a move towards a more constructive dialogue. In the interest of equality, I hope so.