PRESIDENT SCHWARZENEGGER: I Was Elected to Lead, Not to Read
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BILL SHORTEN: First of all, we're going to set up four launch sites, and after dragging them, kicking and screaming, the Conservative states - I don't think we have quite got Queensland sadly, but Mr Baillieu and Mr O'Farrell did come to the party, although after some pain - I have got no doubt that we can pay for this. One proposition in the Productivity Commission who has studied and said “Is it economically possible to provide a social safety net to people with disabilities and their carers?” – one idea they had was a levy. But what gets forgotten in the discussion about the levy is that they would propose the levy, but then States would have to hand over some of their resources. Now at this stage, we're going to need to see more cooperation of the States. What I’d say to the States is disability shouldn't be a partisan issue, so they should stop worry about Canberra, and more worry about people with disabilities. PAUL BONGIORNO: OK. Thank you for being with us today, Bill Shorten. Coming up, Dr Kevin Donnelly - he thinks the Gonski school funding reforms are pandering to the Left. And what do President Schwarzenegger, of ‘The Simpsons' movie, and Tony Abbott, have in common? Take a look. LEIGH SALES: Have you actually read BHP’s statements? TONY ABBOTT: No. I saw some of it, I didn't see all of it. I haven't had a chance to read the transcript. PRESIDENT SCHWARZENEGGER: I pick number three. PRESIDENTIAL AIDE: You don't even want to read them first? PRESIDENT SCHWARZENEGGER: I was elected to lead, not to read. Segment 3 PAUL BONGIORNO, PRESENTER: Welcome back to Meet The Press. The Federal Government is locked in behind-the-scenes negotiations with the States as it hammers out how to deliver $5 billion extra to Australia's schools. TONY ABBOTT: The 34% of Australians who attend independent schools get just 21% of Government funding. So there is no question of injustice to public schools here. If anything, the injustice is the other way. JULIA GILLARD: Every independent school in Australia will see their funding increase under our plan. This plan will lift schools' standards, not school fees. PAUL BONGIORNO: And welcome to the program, Director of the Education Standards Institute, Kevin Donnelly. Good morning, Dr Donnelly. KEVIN DONNELLY: Good morning. PAUL BONGIORNO: Well is Tony Abbott right? Is there an injustice in funding to the independent and private schools? KEVIN DONNELLY: I think that’s probably too hard a word, and I don't think the Leader of the Opposition wanted to say that. I mean, but what he did say is, in fact, true - that when you look at the funding formula that we currently have, on average across Australia, students in a Government school would receive about $14,000 in State and Federal funding, whereas on average again, non-Government students in Catholic and independent schools would get half of that, about $7,000. So the reality is, whether you are a student at a particular Catholic or independent school, you'll never get the same amount of funding as a Government school student. PAUL BONGIORNO: But I suppose if the leader of the Opposition raises it in terms of an injustice, you would think it's an injustice he would want to address. Should independent schools get the same level of funding as public schools? KEVIN DONNELLY: I don't believe anybody is arguing that, and the current model is based on need. And Gonski – we’ve read the report obviously, it's out there - the Government is yet to really give its view on how it’s going to respond. But if you look at Gonski, it does argue the point that in terms of equity and social justice, that disadvantaged students need increased funding. Now, that is what currently happens, I mean, if you look at Melbourne Grammar, or the Kings in Sydney, say an affluent school with a lot of resources - they only receive maximum of about 13% of what a Government school would receive. So the current system is based on need. I don't think Christopher Pyne, or Tony Abbott, or Julia Gillard, obviously, are saying that private schools and Catholic schools should get the same funding. But I think parents who send their children to those schools deserve a level of funding which is reasonable. MARK KENNY: Dr Donnelly, it seems to me that you have some strong criticisms of the philosophy of the Gonski approach, and you were just then saying that the current system works. Now we are talking about the possibility of an extra $5 billion being pumped into education, which I would have thought was a good thing for the education sector. What is wrong with that? KEVIN DONNELLY: Well, I'm not sure whether the money will be there to start with, and I think on current estimates, it's more like $6 billion. The reality is, and the Productivity Commission in Australia, the OECD overseas – all the research is showing that it's not just about money. You can throw money at education, as we have. Frankly, we’ve reduced class sizes, we’ve spent a lot of money over the last 20 years on literacy, numeracy and in fact standards have flatlined. So there's more to it than just throwing money at the problem. Now I'd agree, teachers should be properly resourced. Schools need the support, but we need to look at teacher quality, the curriculum - there are many other factors we need to consider. ALISON CARABINE: But is money still the major determinant in an educational outcome, even it’s not the only measure that determines how well a child does at school? KEVIN DONNELLY: Interestingly, if you look at countries that outperformed Australia, America, England, in terms of international math/science testing – Korea, Singapore, Japan - they are always in the top three or four - they have larger classes, fewer teachers and they don't spend as much money per head GDP as America, England or Australia, but they get better results. Now, I’m not saying it's as simple as saying “What are they doing? Let's copy it”. But I think we need to move away from just saying it's a matter of money, and we need to consider, as the Opposition has said and as the Government has said, we need to consider teacher quality, the curriculum, and also parenting. There's a lot there that parents can do as well. MARK KENNY: You’ve criticised the Gonski approach as being too focused on equity. Can I just be clear about this - you are not saying we should stay where we are, are you? KEVIN DONNELLY: The underlying philosophy of Gonski's report is about equity, and it argues that disadvantage is the greatest cause of students not doing well at school. Now, the research I have looked at, that’s not the case. The ACER, which is based in Melbourne, Gary Marks for example, overseas research, OECD - it shows that economic background or social background is not the main determinant. What really is important are student motivation, parenting, the culture of the school, the classroom environment. So I suppose what I'm saying is we need to be clear here. It's not good putting money at a problem, if it is not the real problem. PAUL BONGIORNO: Tony Abbott quoted you with approval in his book, Battlelines. You obviously have worked for the Coalition in the past. Do you think he'd be well-placed to employ you again? KEVIN DONNELLY: Who knows? Who knows? Politics - as they say, a week is a long time. I don't think we are having an election for a good 8-10 months. So who knows what will happen in the future? PAUL BONGIORNO: Just very briefly, do you think the current SES plan does need some modification? KEVIN DONNELLY: I think something as difficult as education, and complex, you really need to keep an eye on it, and things can be modified where needed. But I think the current model in theory and in practice is reasonably good, and it seems to work. PAUL BONGIORNO: Thank you very much for being with us today, Dr Donnelly. And thanks to our panel - Mark Kenny and Alison Carabine. A transcript and a replay of this program will be on our website. Until next week, goodbye. .