Nothing could suit the Gillard Govt more, than a fight over school funding, on the eve of an election, with the coalition controlled states.
And a chance to differentiate between what it stands for and the policies of the opposition?
[Well, when the opposition promulgate one/some, rather than announce more slick marketing campaign slogans, or a plan to announce a plan? Or should that read, a whole heap of spin/non core promises, that can easily be withdrawn, on the predictable grounds, that unforeseen budget constraints, ("disingenuous Labour again") have made many of them unaffordable?]
And just the excuse the federal Govt needs, to deal the states out and adopt a direct funding model, coupled to more school autonomy, on the eve of an election.
[A cost cutting political master stroke perhaps? With a redirect to the coalface, 30% savings available, in the direct funding model?]
If this means the Gillard Govt, will then be seen by parents as going in to bat for their kids; against coalition intransigence/injustice?
Natural instincts may well change parental voting intentions.
Labour has always fought with a predictable mallable coalition, on public health and education models/issues, and will again, with the predictable anti-Gonski coalition?
Labour just needs a suitable vehicle or pawns
A malleable coalition, with its manifest medieval master servant mindset, arguably still pines for and or, entrenches privilege; and therefore, by implication, is still fighting/advocating for, the ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots!?
And if that's how the coalition look or come across, who else can they blame?
Rhrosty.

The reporting on the Gonski report has been truly abysmal. It has taken 13 months for any of the newspapers I read to even report accurately what the Gonski panel recommended, but at last one has:
‘Contrary to early expectations, the new model for private school funding is really a rebadged SES (socioeconomic status) model, despite denials. The SES model was devised under John Howard and is beloved by Abbott….’
(Paul Kelly, ‘PM prepares education election’, The Australian, 27/3/2013) (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/pm-prepares-education-election/story-e6frg74x-1226607110872)

Yet, I pointed this out the day the report was released in an unpublished letter to The Age:
‘21/2/2012

‘The Gonski report is, overall, a magnificent and meticulous plan for the future funding our schools (“A historic chance to fix education funding”, 21/2), but it contains two daggers – one pointing at the hearts of all our teachers and one pointing at the hearts of low-fee private schools….

‘To ignore school resources and determine funding for private schools based on the capacity of parents to pay is both discriminatory and inequitable. It is discriminatory because there is no suggestion that public schools be funded in the same way - though this recommendation will give impetus to that idea. It is inequitable because it will force the most inclusive private schools to put up their fees and thus become more exclusive….’

It is in the interest of the systemic school authorities not to agree to a continuation of the SES model because when they were conned into doing so by the Howard government they had to endure years of their compensation being called ‘overfunding’. Doing so again will lead to the same result.

It is also in the interests of the Coalition state governments to agree because recommendation 22 removes a propaganda point used against the Howard government and likely to be used against any Abbott government, but given the ignorance that abounds on this issue, I won’t guarantee that the coalition will even be clever enough to act in its own interests.

Chris C
Notwithstanding the issue of propaganda Recommendation 22 remains the sticking point between the commonwealth and the states/territories regarding 'more balanced funding roles' transitioning into a new funding model. Will the Gillard government demand a 70/30 funding split? Will the states agree noting their already considerable funding commitment to public education? How will this be resolved by April 19?
It's inevitable Canberra will desire a greater say in funding as in seeking outcome targets according to PISA and TIMSS criteria by 2025 but will those objectives please all independent schools? For some schools 'certainty and stability' will fall out as reduced recurrent income from either level of government.
Bennery

John Benn's article is titled "School reform in a climate of political instability", but was mostly be about the federal government being unpopular, making reform difficult. That reform is difficult for an unpopular government is so obvious, Mr. Benn need not have spent more than a sentence or two on the topic. I had hoped Mr. Benn would go on to tell us something useful, such as what reform he wanted for schools and what was needed to bring it about, but he did not.