Schools worse now than when Gonski wrote report

Schools worse now than when Gonski wrote report

Date

September 14, 2014

• 
  

Amy McNeilage

Reporter

View more articles from Amy McNeilage

Follow Amy on Twitter
Follow Amy on Google+
Email Amy

EXCLUSIVE

Worse off: the academic gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students is widening.

The Australian education system is in worse shape now than
when David Gonski handed down his damning assessment of it three years
ago, with academic performance sliding and the gap between advantaged
and disadvantaged students widening.



A new analysis of My School data provided to The Sun Herald tells of deterioration in Australian schools since the controversial website was launched in 2010.




It also finds that the disparity between the highest and
lowest performing students, which is already greater than most other
developed countries, is deepening.



The NAPLAN test results from 2009 to 2013 published on the
website show student achievement has stalled or languished across a
majority of the measures. But a deeper analysis reveals, while results
have climbed for advantaged students, they have slipped for those from
the middle and bottom of the socioeconomic scale. The gap is especially
stark  in high schools.




The co-author of the analysis, Chris Bonnor, says the
notable trends, measured over just a few years, indicate a serious and
worsening equity problem.



"What Gonski found to be bad, seems to be getting worse," Mr
Bonnor, a former school principal and policy analyst, said. "If we
ever need another impetus to get equity right, surely this data is
posing lots of questions that need to be answered."



Results for years 5 and 9 show writing and numeracy scores
have fallen, while reading scores rose for year 5 and were unchanged
for year 9. But, when grouped by socioeducational status, numeracy
scores rose for the most advantaged students in all sectors. For
schools in middle and low brackets, the trend is downwards or
fluctuating. The divergence is also noticeable for both year groups in
writing.



The picture looks better for primary school reading where results have improved.



The trends show the link between disadvantage and poor test
results has become more pronounced, particularly in primary schools and
schools in metropolitan areas.



Mr Bonnor said the money trail over the  past few years
helps explain the downward trend. He examined school funding at schools
from public, private and Catholic at three different levels of
advantage. While disadvantaged students receive the most in government
funding, more money was spent on the most advantaged students than any
other group, especially when school fees were taken into account.



The analysis does not capture any changes resulting from the
new needs-based funding model implemented this year. But, the report
argues, the changes have occurred while the Gonski review "proceeded,
reported, was variously ignored, cherry-picked, somewhat implemented
then in relative terms largely abandoned".



Trevor Cobbold, the convener of Save Our Schools and a
former Productivity Commission economist, said the scaled-back version
of the Gonski model would "fall far short" of addressing weakness in
Australia's school system.



"Every principal in a disadvantaged school in the country
will be pleased with the extra funding they're going to get, but that
just shows how desperate they are," he said. "They are happy to get the
$1000 extra per kid because they can do something with it but I think
the evidence shows we're just actually not going to make a big enough
difference."



The president of the NSW Teachers Federation, Maurie
Mulheron, says teachers have been "trying to work miracles" without the
additional resources they need for disadvantaged students.



A spokesman for Education Minister Christopher Pyne said the
federal government does not believe increased funding leads to better
results.



"This has been disproven over the past decade, where school
funding has risen by 40 per cent, but student outcomes have declined,"
he said. "It is the quality and ability of teachers that makes the
biggest impact on student performance in our country."



Labor's  assistant minister for education Amanda Rishworth
said the next generation of Australians would pay the price of the
government's reluctance to commit to the final two years of Gonski
funding, when the bulk of the money was due to flow through.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/schools-worse-now-than-when-gonski-wrote-report-20140913-10gepz.html#ixzz3DDzL6ZMt

Top Of The Class: Pyne's Education Reforms Highlight A Looming Political Battleground | newmatilda.com

Top Of The Class: Pyne's Education Reforms Highlight A Looming Political Battleground | newmatilda.com

Top Of The Class: Pyne's Education Reforms Highlight A Looming Political Battleground

By Ben Eltham

Keywords: 

Go8

christopher pyne

The Abbott Government's Higher Education reforms are shaping up to become a key political battleground. Ben Eltham explains.

Education Minister Christopher Pyne has been busy of late.


As well as leading the government in the House of Representatives,
Pyne has a radical plan to reshape Australia’s higher education system.


The Education Minister wants to slash 20 per cent from student
funding, charge students higher interest rates on their student loans,
and completely deregulate university fees.


Over the weekend, the voluble South Australian was out and about explaining the need for his university reforms.


Speaking on The Bolt Report, Pyne attempted to defend his radical
plans by claiming that “we cannot have no reform to universities or they will slide into mediocrity.”


In the interview, Pyne refused to rule out reports in Fairfax that
he would cut university research funding if the Senate won’t pass his
reform bill, due to be introduced to Parliament this week.


“Savings do need to be found,” he told Bolt. “And the only savings
measures that are available to the government are ones that aren’t
legislated, which are ones like research.”


To say that sent a shiver down the spines of university
Vice-Chancellors is something of an understatement. There was audible
panic from university chancelleries, particularly in the
research-intensive sandstone unis often known as the “Group of Eight”
(Go8).


Cutting research funding truly would be a disaster for the sandstone
unis. International rankings, like the prestigious system run by
Shanghai’s Jiao Tong University, use research output as a key input metric. Big cuts to research will inevitably see Australian universities sliding down global league tables.


Melbourne University boss Glynn Davis, who knows a thing or two about
politics, told The Australian’s Julie Hare that cutting research grants
further (they were already cut in the May budget) “would be more
devastating than any other one action: devastating to Australia’s reputation internationally, to our scientific workforce, to medical research”.


“It would be an extraordinary decision,” Davis said.


Others in the sector might just have had cause for the tiniest bit of
schadenfreude upon hearing Pyne’s threat, though. The Group of Eight
has been essentially the only supporter of Pyne’s changes. That’s
because the sandstone unis have the most to gain from fee deregulation,
which would allow them to hike up tuition fees to levels approaching
prestigious US institutions.


But the support has been lukewarm. The sandstone VCs have internal
problems of their own: there is widespread dissent amongst students and
academic staff about the changes, and the University of Sydney, for
instance, was forced by activists on its governing Senate to hold a town hall meeting to debate the changes last night.

Pyne’s threat of withholding research funding therefore looks like a
gambit to bring the Group of Eight into line. With the support of
Vice-Chancellors from this group, Pyne can split the sector and pretend
he has at least some support for fee deregulation.


And lo and behold, the Group of Eight VCs are in Canberra today, in an attempt to try and negotiate on the bill with Pyne.


As usual with this government, the views of those most affected by
the changes have not been sought. Pyne was dismissive of student
concerns in his interview with Andrew Bolt, making a flippant comment
that “we’re not exactly asking for their left kidney”.


Students and families faced with sky-rocketing fees for a basic
tertiary education have a different view. So too do regional and
suburban universities. These institutions lower down the international
rankings and with less of the accumulated prestige enjoyed by their big
city cousins, have far less leverage when it comes to raising fees.


This could see some universities dangerously exposed to deficits and
job cuts should prospective students decide that they can’t or won’t
enrol.


They will probably raise fees anyway, mind you: in the UK, where fees
were deregulated a few years ago, nearly every institution in the
country raised their fees, from Oxford and Cambridge right on through to
the newest and least prestigious.


The scary thing about these reforms is just how radical they are, and
how uncertain. New Matilda spoke to a number of higher education policy
experts yesterday. None of them was prepared to predict the short or
long-term impacts of the reforms.


Everyone we spoke to agrees that universities will immediately hike
up their tuition fees. But beyond that, no-one really knows what will
happen.


Will higher university fees deter domestic students from getting an
undergraduate degree? Will the radical change force universities to cut
courses, killing off unprofitable arts and science faculties? Could one
or more regional universities go broke?


What about the implications for secondary schools? Could middle class
parents, worried about the spiraling cost of higher education, decide
to send their kids to the local high school, so as to save up for
university?


The answer to all of these questions is a shoulder shrug. We simply don’t know.


Perhaps the most alarming aspect of Pyne’s reforms is the proposal to
open federal funding and HECS support up to private colleges and
institutions. This sets the scene for the wholesale entry of the private
sector into Australia’s higher education system.


The domestic and international precedents for such a reform aren’t
good. When Victoria opened up its vocational education and training
system to private providers a few years ago, the result was a debacle.


The reforms, ushered in by the Labor government of John Brumby, were
meant to expand vocational education by allowing private providers
access to public subsidies.


What happened? Widespread rorting. With
little regulation to protect students, unscrupulous providers rushed
into the marketplace, luring unqualified students into courses with
offers of cash bonuses, laptops and tablets. Enrolments exploded by 300
per cent, blowing out the state’s education budget and forcing the
incoming Liberal government under Ted Ballieu to implement savage cuts.


In a chilling harbinger of a likely outcome under Pyne, Ballieu
decided to cut funding to public institutions to make up the difference.
There were wholesale job losses and campus closures in Victoria’s TAFE
system. Private providers, meanwhile, continued to offer cheap,
low-quality courses .


One prominent education researcher described the Victorian deregulation as a “lesson in how not to reform vocational education”.


Or perhaps you’d prefer to look at the American experience with
deregulated higher education. A recent review by the US Senate – a body
not known for its rabidly anti-market views – found that for-profit education in the US has been a disaster.


On average, just 17 per cent of revenue at private, for-profit
institutions goes to teaching, while more than 20 per cent is skimmed
off in profit. In some cases, graduation rates are less than 50 per
cent, meaning that more than half their students drop out.


The University of Phoenix is a good example of how for-profit education operates in the wild. Long trumpeted by Australian ideologues such as Andrew Norton
as a nimble innovator that paid “careful attention to the needs of its
target market”, the University of Phoenix had a drop out rate of 60 per
cent in 2012. Of those who completed its courses, 21 per cent defaulted
on their student loan.


The University of Phoenix spends twice as much on its marketing budget as it does on teaching.


The wonder of it all is that the Abbott government is attempting such a
massive reform in the first place. It gave no hint of these policies
before winning office: indeed, both Abbott and Pyne ruled them out.


Speaking last February to the peak tertiary lobby group, Universities
Australia, Abbott said that “a period of relative policy stability in
which changes already made can be digested and adjusted to, such as the
move to demand-driven funding, is probably what our universities most need now”.


The scale of the reforms proposed by Pyne are not well understood by
the broader public, but if and when they do, they could well be a
defining issue at the next election.


Labor certainly thinks so.


The ALP has launched a nation-wide campaign on university fees,
clearly believing that it is the sort of issue that can swing votes in
key middle-class electorates. With more than half of all school leavers
going on to university, tertiary education is a mainstream issue in the
way it wasn’t under the Howard government.

Pyne short on maths when it comes to 'prestige' degrees

Pyne short on maths when it comes to 'prestige' degrees

Luke Sulzberger 30 May 2014, 7:35am 152

EducationPoliticsSpace

Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne

Is the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, having a
lend when he reckons it's fair to pay over $500,000 for the same degree
he got for free, asks Luke Sulzberger.



OUR CURRENT Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne,
has justified a deregulation of university course fees and the
introduction of up to 6 per cent interest on these new debts with the
argument that university graduates earn on average 75 per cent more than
their non-university educated cohort.



By Pyne's reckoning, they should, therefore, shoulder the cost of education.





What Pyne hasn’t told us is, for some, this means lifelong debts totalling over $500,000 for the same degree he received for free.



The ear-marked deregulation will see Australian students pay at least
as much as currently paid by international full-fee students according to Grattan Institute Higher Education program director Andrew Norton.



The Australian Financial Review’s Tim Dodd said that “prestige” degrees of Law and Medicine would see up to a 300 per cent increase. This is backed by modelling provided by the National Tertiary Education Union.







Cartoon by John Graham



Time for a maths lesson, Mr Pyne:



Today, a University of Sydney combined Law/Science degree for a full-fee paying (non-HECS) student costs $195,000.



In 1989, the first HECS Law/Science degree cost $9000 (for the entire
degree), indexed with CPI, payable at a 1-3 per cent of income, after
income reached about $35,000 p.a.


After Howard increased the student HECS contribution, a post -1996
Law/Science degree cost from $27,500 to $45,000 (a 500 per cent
increase) indexed with CPI, but now to be paid back at up to 6 per cent
of income when income reaches $45,000 p.a.


A HELP-based (the system was renamed for reasons that will soon become obvious) Law/Science degree at University of Sydney costs $46,300, indexed with CPI, and payable at a rate of 4-8 per cent of income depending on income.


A post -2016 Law/Science degree at University of Sydney will most likely
cost more than $195,000. It will accrue interest of up to 6 per cent
p.a. regardless of whether it is even being paid back, or at what rate.
Accruing 5 per cent interest and paid back at $10,800 a year would
result in a whopping 12 per cent of $90,000 income.



This represents a massive 400-1,200 per cent increase in the initial HECS payback rate. Over fifty years, the student will pay $540,000 in total and be in debt for their entire working  life. 







What Pyne may have also conveniently missed is that this figure is an
optimistic one because it doesn’t allow for the graduate to experience a
few months where they are out of high income work let alone months, or
years off to have a child.
 And heaven help any student who drops out mid-degree or can only find
low income work. The debts of these students are too scary to calculate.



And yes, a law degree when Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop, Christopher Pyne attended university was FREE!



And Joe Hockey paid just $3,662 for his entire combined Arts/Law degree.







Students protest on Q&A



If the Minister for Educations believes that university graduates
should pay for the opportunity to earn 75 per cent more income, surely
this applies regardless of when you attended university? Lawyers who
graduated with no debt, or $9,000 non-interest-bearing debt, or $60,000
debt, or a $540,000 debt, have all had the same opportunity to earn more
by virtue of their education. 



Why should this massive burden fall only on the current generation of students?



Would it not be more logical and efficient (not to mention fair) to
increase the income tax rate of the demographic earning this “75 per
cent more” to pay for the hike in education fees?



And most importantly – other than ensure future lawyers only come
from one type of family – how does any of this help Australia move
forward from a mineral-export-based economy to a modern technology,
services and innovation-based economy?



It just doesn’t add up Mr Pyne.



(Editor's note:



Hear what Abbott & Pyne actually said below:  

“no school will be worse off over the forward estimates period” and “we will make sure no school is worse off”)

Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne - what they actually said before the election

John Graham's art is available for purchase by emailing editor@independentaustralia.net. See a gallery of John's political art on his Cartoons and Caricatures Facebook page.





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

University of NSW calls for 'rational debate' on education reforms rather than 'misleading assumptions' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

University of NSW calls for 'rational debate' on education reforms rather than 'misleading assumptions' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

University of NSW calls for 'rational debate' on education reforms rather than 'misleading assumptions'

Updated
8 hours 50 minutes ago

Photo:
Fred Hilmer says it is up to the institutions to decide what fees should apply to which courses. (www.sxc.hu: AQUANEWS)

Related Story:
Modelling warns of uni fee rise under proposed reforms

Related Story:
Pyne insists university deregulation will force fees down

Related Story:
PM rules out chasing HECS debt from deceased estates

Map:
Australia

The University of New South Wales (UNSW) is calling
for a "rational debate" about proposed changes to higher education,
rather than what it is describing as "misleading assumptions".

The
Government wants to deregulate universities, allowing them to set their
own fees, and increase the interest rate paid on student loans.

In
his first budget speech last month, Treasurer Joe Hockey said the
higher education sector was being held back and "couldn't compete with
the best in the world".

However, modelling by Universities Australia (UA) - which represents the country's 39 universities - has found the changes will see fees increase for certain courses, including nursing and engineering.

UA chief executive Belinda Robinson told Lateline that measures in the budget threaten to encourage students to study overseas.

"We
might start to see Australian students voting with their feet and in
fact starting to consider international higher education providers," she
said.

But UNSW vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer says the modelling "
... on the impact on fees of changes to cluster funding rates is based
on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the system works and does
not represent the view of UNSW".

The Government's low blow

The
radical shake-up of higher education funding and HECS/HELP loans
represents a fundamental lie by the Government, writes Greg Jericho.

"It is up to universities, not Canberra, to decide what
fees should apply to which courses. The funding by cluster is simply a
way of generating a total sum of money that the Commonwealth is prepared
to contribute for the teaching of Australian students in Commonwealth
supported places," he said in a statement.

"The way in which those
sums are distributed across disciplines is entirely up to the
universities, as are the fees that a university would seek to charge on
top.

"The 20 per cent cut in government funding drives an increase
of 30 per cent in student contributions. As the UA paper indicates, on
average the amount of funding per student is reduced by $2251.

"Therefore
an average increase of $2,251 would be required to compensate. It is up
to the university concerned whether a disproportionate amount comes
from some faculties or whether it applies the increase of $2,251 to each
course on a uniform basis.

"Nothing in the legislation impacts the university’s discretion to do this.

"Consequently
statements about large increases for particular disciplines indicate
what universities are considering they might do, not what they are
required to do."

But he says he is concerned about some of the
proposed changes though, including the changes to student loans and the
size of the cut in Commonwealth funding.

"There are elements of
the government package that I would like to see amended, particularly in
regard to the changes to HELP, the size of the overall cut in
government funding and the reduction in funding for the research
training scheme," he said.

"But we need a rational debate based on facts rather than misleading assumptions."

Christopher Pyne's pledge sparks fears public schools will be ignored

Christopher Pyne's pledge sparks fears public schools will be ignored

Date

May 31, 2014

Alexandra Smith

Education Editor

View more articles from Alexandra Smith

Follow Alexandra on Twitter
Email Alexandra

"The emotional commitment within the federal
government is to continue to have a direct relationship with the
non-government schools sector": Education Minister Christopher Pyne. Photo: Andrew Meares

Education Minister Christopher Pyne has told Christian school
leaders that his government has an ''emotional commitment'' to private
schools, prompting fears the Abbott government will abandon public
schools.



Speaking at a Christian Schools Australia national policy dinner in
Canberra this week, Mr Pyne assured the school leaders he did not want
to sever long-held ties with Christian and independent schools.




''I want to have a direct relationship with the non-government sector,
as I believe we have had since 1963,'' Mr Pyne said. ''Having talked to
the Prime Minister about this matter many times, it is his view that we
have a particular responsibility for non-government schooling that we
don't have for [state] government schooling.''



Mr Pyne assured the Christian schools he could not ''see those circumstances changing''.

Advertisement

Mr Pyne made the comments after fears were raised by the National
Commission of Audit, which recommended funding and control of the
non-government school sector should be handed to the states.



Commonwealth funding for state and independent schools will be provided
under the Gonski formula designed to give funding to schools most in
need. The government has committed to four years of ''Gonski'' funding,
but there are fears independent schools would be favoured over state
schools in a new deal for 2018 onwards.



Mr Pyne's comments follow his statements - quickly quashed by the Prime
Minister - that higher education fees for university students would
still need to be paid even if the student died.


''The emotional commitment within the federal government is
to continue to have a direct relationship with the non-government
schools sector. I think the states and territories would prefer that as
well,'' Mr Pyne said.



The president of the NSW Secondary Principals' Council, Lila Mularczyk,
warned that Mr Pyne's comments signalled a commitment to directly fund
non-government schools at the expense of public schools.



''Students most in need of additional learning support have seen Minister Pyne turn his back on them again,'' Ms Mularczyk said.



''We cannot rest easy when the educational gaps between schools, and
often schooling systems, are entrenched and will grow because of a
dismissive, dangerous budget and an Education Minister who openly claims
to be emotionally driven in maintaining a relationship with the
non-government sector.''



The Australian Education Union deputy federal president, Correna
Haythorpe, said Mr Pyne's ''divisive view of schools'' was contrary to
the needs-based principles of the Gonski funding model. Ms Haythorpe
said federal funding of government schools was crucial to the quality
and equity of the schools system.



''Federal governments have funded government schools for over 40 years,
recognising the need to support state governments who do not have the
same revenue base,'' Ms Haythorpe said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/christopher-pynes-pledge-sparks-fears-public-schools-will-be-ignored-20140530-399up.html#ixzz33E0oaYoR

School Principals in Revolt

School Principals in Revolt

By John Kelly on March 3, 2014 • ( 14 )

One
interesting characteristic of an undersea earthquake or a tsunami is
that, for the most part, it is silent until it reaches land. Using that
as an analogy one could say an undersea earthquake has erupted within
the ranks of Victorian school principals and their school councils and
has reached land. Its objective: to end the practice of religious
education programs in their schools. This earthquake arrived last week
when a courageous school principal, Joe Kelly from Cranbourne Primary
School, went public on the nature of Christian Religious Education
(CRE), being provided by Access Ministries, the organisation providing
the service to public schools in Victoria. Mr Kelly’s concerns were the
subject of an article by Konrad Marshall in The Age newspaper on 17th February.

Mr Kelly stated that he would no longer allow Access Ministries in his school. “It is not education,” he said. “It
has no value whatsoever. It is rubbish – hollow and empty rhetoric … My
school teachers are committed to teaching children, not indoctrinating
them.” The objection Mr Kelly and other school principals have
is that Access Ministries is proselytising rather than informing;
instructing rather than educating. Mr Kelly has also questioned the
qualifications of the volunteers provided by Access Ministries stating
that they are not professional teachers and undergo just six hours
training before they are sent into schools. Meanwhile, the response to
Konrad Marshall’s article was extraordinary to say the least, recording
over 14,000 Facebook likes and 175 comments highlighting the concerns
many parents have about faith-based religious education.


The article also brought a quick response from the Victorian
Education Minister, Martin Dixon who appeared to give tacit support to
the principals’ actions. He said he had “full confidence in school principals making decisions in the interests of their parent body and the school community”.

Excerpt from the article

EDUCATION BY ABBOTT AND CO : ABBOTT STYLE

Christopher Pyne Minister for Uneducation wants to change the Curriculum to reflect the secret agenda of Murdoch and Abbott his Prime Minion.

An agenda which includes Catholic education, re writing History in a very racist fashion and ignoring multiculturalism.

Chris PYNENOCCHIO   ( as is now known ) abandoned children with special needs and back-flipped on their PROMISE to roll out the Gonski education which Labor started rolling out before the last Elections, an education system to be all-inclusive and with the necessary check and balances to ensure all children in Australia receive a first class education.

Lies and deceit has now become the norm of the Abbott Government and now a whole generation of Australian Children will miss out a good education.