“Better Schools” in Tasmania

From a TPA perspective it’s essential any reform drives transformation by focusing on 3 areas: 1. Creating empowered and highly effective school leadership - the single biggest driver in achieving Melbourne Declaration Goals 1 and 2 by 2025. 2. Improving and maintaining quality teaching. 3. Achieving real improvement in student outcomes, through consultation with experienced educational experts and research.

This paper is a best effort at describing the implications of the proposed reforms in education associated with the funding and program arrangements that are currently being negotiated between Canberra and Tasmania. It is based on information found on the DEEWR, Better Schools web site.

Can we afford Gonski type funding?

Some Background From Jan 1, 2014 education in Australia will be guided by a new Education Bill. This Bill is currently “in Parliament”. Regardless of the outcome of negotiations between the federal government and Tasmania, from Jan 1, 2014 Australian education will reflect this new legislation.

The Bill will be developed through what is known as The Better Schools Legislation. This can be found at http://www.betterschools.gov.au/australian-education-bill .

There are 2 distinct elements to the proposed Bill.

 A set of clearly defined priorities that will shape the future work of schools, teachers and principals. Whilst these priorities have attracted little media attention they have the potential to be the significant legacy of this reform.

 A resource model for distributing money to states. This is the element that has attracted most media interest as it describes both how and how much money is to flow from government to schools.

The current negotiations on both these elements are being conducted directly between the office of the Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier (DPAC). The Department of Education is asked for advice. It’s our understanding that Minister McKim is not directly managing these developments.

Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations the practice of the Federal government paying Treasury an agreed amount and Treasury then setting the DoE budget will continue. The Tasmanian Government will retain a responsibility to provide the vast majority of school funding. The accountability/transparency element of the Better Schools legislation is

1

designed to track where Federal and State money has been distributed. This transparency does not exist at present. Better Schools

Better Schools outlines a new architecture for education. It describes 5 priorities and each is teased out with statements that describe an obvious outcome or intent. Further information is teased out in the Better Schools website. This appears to be updated daily.

The priorities are: (these have been copied directly) Priority 1 -Quality teaching The best teachers will be in our classrooms.  Higher entry standards for teaching and better training for teaching students  Teachers will need to be in the top 30 per cent for literacy and numeracy before they can graduate  Annual performance reviews for every teacher  All teachers will have access to ongoing training throughout their career.

Priority 2 -Quality learning Every student will receive a world class education.  All schools will implement the high quality Australian Curriculum, in all subjects, by 2016 for Foundation to Year 10 and by 2018 for Years 11-12  An early years reading blitz will focus on improving literacy skills in Foundation to Year 3  Every student will have access to learning an Asian language by 2025  Science will be added to the NAPLAN tests so we can track progress.

Priority 3 -Empowered school leadership Schools will have more say over decision-making.  Principals will have more power to make the best decisions for their schools including choosing staff and managing the budget.  Principals will receive extra training in leadership skills and ongoing professional development.

Priority 4 -Meeting student need All students will get the support they need.  A fairer school funding system will be based on the needs of every individual student  There will be extra money for schools and students that need more support – low SES students, Indigenous students, students with disability, students with limited English skills, small schools, and rural and remote schools  This extra funding will help pay for things like specialised equipment and teachers, and programs like breakfast clubs and literacy programs  Every school will have a Safe School Plan to prevent bullying  Schools will be encouraged to engage parents and the broader school community to improve student outcomes.

2

Priority 5 -Transparency and accountability Parents and the community will have more information about school performance.  Every school will have a school improvement plan that sets out how it will improve results  More information will be published on the My School site  School authorities will have to report on how they spend extra money under the new funding model  A new Australian School Performance Institute will collect better data and conduct research into the best way to improve our schools  There will be an annual State of Our Schools report.

To get more detailed information go to the agreement NSW has signed. It can be found at http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/other_related_agreements/current /National_Education_Reform_Agreement.pdf Scroll to page 12, statement 32 onwards holds the detail.

The Resource Model Back Ground The proposed model for distributing money to schools has certainly gained media attention. Like most things in education the model’s subtlety and sophistication are easily lost when we attempt to explain its key elements. How much detail do you use?

For example the loading for students from low socio economic back grounds is based on data from the My School web site. Where does it come from? Is this data accurate? (It’s drawn from the information parents supply when they enroll their child). How often is the information updated? On the surface the change from funding a system to funding a student is straight forward but like any complex set of measures it relies on “good” data.

The elements of the proposed resource model reflect the recommendations found in the 2011 “Gonski” review. (Remember the Gonski review covered much more than funding).  Achieving a school resource standard or benchmark and a loading and reflects the unique educational needs of a student.  Fund a student not a system.  Transparency.  Different funding for secondary compared to primary.

Allocating money to schools: All money will be distributed. Schools will no longer need to rely on grants or short-term programs.

The Federal Government will use the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) settings to calculate the amount of Commonwealth funding that flows to State authorities, who will then distribute this money to schools.

State governments will introduce their own needs-based school funding systems based on the Commonwealth model. This includes a per student amount and loadings for types of

3

schools and students. This model will be used to distribute all funding—Commonwealth, State and Territory—to the majority of schools.

Education authorities will have the flexibility to adjust the funding they allocate to schools according to local need, but these decisions will need to be transparent and accountable. Information on the distribution of funding will be available on My School, so parents and the wider community can see that public funding is being provided to schools based on the needs of the students attending that school.

Phasing in the new system SRS funding will be phased in over six years.

The Gonski modeling suggests thousands of schools are (2011) currently below a Schooling Resource Standard entitlement. It’s proposed these schools will receive increased funding every year to reach the Schooling Resource Standard, then their funding will keep pace with the Schooling Resource Standard at the indexed rate.

Schools already at their School Resourcing Standard will receive their 2013 funding, which will grow each year by 3.6 per cent. Schools above the Schools Resourcing Standard will also receive their 2013 funding, which will grow by 3 per cent.

Modeling using a Tasmanian School I have attempted to model the implications of the new funding proposal using the following school profile. (Please Note: Each school is different hence will end up with its unique funding model)

Average Per student funding in 2012 $14 666 Net recurrent funding $4 725 480 School type Secondary School ICSEA value 923 Total enrolments 305 Indigenous 10% LBOTE 1% Location Provincial (outer regional) Distribution of students Bottom Quarter Middle Quarters Top Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 44% 36% 13% 6% Your school’s data can be found on the My School website.

Benchmark Each student attracts a per-capita amount called the Benchmark. The Gonski concept of benchmarking an amount per student, based on the efficient costs of delivering education in a set of Australia’s best performing schools, known as ‘reference schools’ has been accepted.

4

The bench mark is currently set at $9 271 per primary school student and $12 193 per high school student for each and every student regardless of sector (Gov, Independent or Catholic). This amount will be indexed 3.6% per annum.

Implication for the Tasmanian school 305 secondary students at a bench mark of $12 193 = $3 718 865

The Loadings Low Socio-economic Background (is a Sliding Scale) The Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling proposed extra funding for every student in the lowest 25 per cent of socio-economic backgrounds. Following representation from professional associations the proposed model has been extended to cover the lowest 50 per cent of students.

Students in the First Quartile

Q1 has been set at 15% of the per student benchmark ($1 391 per primary student and $1 829 per secondary student) for the first student in the lowest SES quartile (Q1), increasing up to 50% for Q1 enrolments over 75% in a single school ($4 635 per primary student and $6 096 per secondary student).

Implication for the Tasmanian school For the model school 44% of students are in Q1 i.e. 134 students represented in the first quartile. For this school Q1 students attract $3 840 each. (This amount is different for each school) Q1 funding =134x$3 840 i.e. Q1 = $514 560

Students in the Second Quartile

The Q2 loading starts at 7.5 per cent for the first Q2 student ($695 per primary student and $914 per secondary student), increasing up to 37.5 per cent for Q2 enrolments over 75 per cent in a single school ($3 477 per primary student and $4 572 per secondary student).

Implication for the model Tasmanian school For the model school, 36% of students are in Q2 i.e. 110 students. For this school Q2 attracts $2 865 per student. (This amount is different for each school) Q2 = 110x $2865 i.e. Q2 =$315 144

Indigenous Student Loading (Sliding scale) The Gonski review recommended that this loading be applied in incremental steps, however this would mean that in some cases a difference of one or two students could make a large difference in the amount of funding it would receive. This has been adjusted to a sliding scale, so that with each percentage increase of Indigenous student enrolments, the value of the loading will gradually increase.

5

The Indigenous loading starts at 20 per cent of the per student benchmark amount for the first Indigenous student in a school ($1,854 per primary student and $2,439 per secondary student), increasing up to 120 per cent for schools with 100 per cent Indigenous students ($11,125 per primary student and $14,631 per secondary student).

Implication for the Tasmanian school For the model school 10% of the students have an Indigenous background. The 31 indigenous students at this school attract $3 658 each. (This amount is different for each school) 31x $3 658 i.e. Indigenous funding is $113 404

Students with Limited English Skills Loading: This is set at 10 per cent of the per student amount up to a capped funding amount of $927 for every primary student and $1219 for every secondary student.

Implication for the Tasmanian school For the model school 1% of students come from a LOBTE background These students attract $1 219 each 3x 1 219 = i.e. LOBTE funding is $3 657

School Size and Location The initial Gonski recommendations combined size and location. The proposed model separates these elements.

School Size Loading (a sliding scale):  Primary schools with up to 200 students will attract $150 000 (with a cap for schools with less than 15 students), reducing to zero for schools with 300 student enrolments.  Secondary schools with up to 500 students will attract $240 000 (with a cap for schools with less than 100 students), reducing to zero for schools with 700 students.  Combined schools will receive a size loading based on the weighted average of their primary and secondary student enrolments.

Implication for the Tasmanian school The school size loading for the model school is $240 000

School Location Loading: There are 4 levels of school location loading:  Inner Regional, e.g. Launceston and Hobart schools will receive up to 10 per cent of the loading amount (the total of the per student amount elements plus any school size loading).

6

 Outer Regional, e.g. Burnie schools will receive between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of the loading amount.  Remote schools, e.g. West Coast will receive between 30 per cent and 70 cent of the loading amount  Very Remote schools e.g. Flinders Island and KI will receive between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of the loading amount The four amounts will be calculated on the ABS-endorsed Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) scores. New ARIA scores based on the 2011 Census will be available soon.

Implication for the Tasmanian school Set at 10% this loading provides $371 887 At 30% the loading provides $1 115 660

Students with Disability Loading: This loading will be phased in from 2015 once a nationally consistent data collection on students with disability has been established. In the meantime an interim loading has been calculated, and funding under the More Support for Students with Disability National Partnership will be extended by an extra $100 million in 2014.

Implication for the Tasmanian school Unknown at this stage.

Tas School # 1 Data Factor $ Sum Per student 14 666 FTE 305 (2012) a Benchmark 12 193 3 718 865 3 718 865 b Q1 % 44 56.9 581 435 4 300 300 c Q2 % 36 48.77 293 135 4 593 435 d Indigenous % 10 121.92 111 575 4 705 010 e LOBTE % 1 1219 3 718 4 708 728 f Size 240 000 4 948 728 16 225 g Location Low 10% 10% of benchmark 371 887 5 320 615 17 445 Location High 30% 30% of benchmark 1 115 660 6 064 388 19 883

Please Note This modelling has not been verified by DoE nor DEEWR. It’s based on the information held on the public website and reflects a best effort at interpreting its implications.

There are risks in circulating this information:  Students in this school will not receive $17 848 as the DoE Centre will need to fund its accountability, policy, support and public service employment responsibilities prior to distributing money to a school.

7

 The $17 848 is the average for a student. Some students will attract the benchmark others will bring significantly more than.  Parents and community groups, especially those that advocate for students who attract the loading will/may focus on the gross funding and thus create an expectation that this amount will be allocated directly to support a student.  This modeling does not include a “Special Ed” factor- no concrete information at present (the money is there but the new allocation model is being worked on for 2015).  The model assumes there is enough money in the first place.  The model is phased in over 6 years and is back loaded i.e. most of the money is scheduled to be allocated in 2016 and beyond. There may well be less money in 2014.  The $14666 per capita allocation for 2012 includes staffing, National Partnership and Special Ed money. It is the actual money spent within the school in 2012 as published on the MYSCHOOL website. The amount modeled through this document e.g. between $17 445 and $19 883 is money the students at this school bring to DoE. DoE will distribute money to schools using a model they have negotiated through COAG.

I hope this attempt at modeling contributes to your thinking on this issue and helps you answer the question “Can we afford Gonski type funding?”

David Raw President TPA May 2013

8