Shadow Minister,

You “doubt” and “suspect”. I “know”. Of course, schools can take teachers from other schools and the private sector. I’ll give one example. In 1992, I was the only teacher in my then school, Whittlesea College, to win an Advanced Skills Teacher level three position. All the other appointees came from other schools. This is on the public record as successful appointees are listed in public documents.

Most teachers come from within the system, but that is because most of the applicants are from within the system. I have sat on many selection panels over the years and we have always judged each candidate on merit, no matter where they are from.

I have worked with teachers who have come from private schools to public schools and I know teachers who have moved from public schools to private schools. People believe things that are untrue because these untrue things are repeated in the press again and again and again; e.g., The Australian has reported an almost/close to/more than 40/40-50/44/50 per cent increase in total/per capita/per student spending on education in real terms/not in real terms over the past decade/over an earlier decade/over nine years, while every letter of correction has been refused publication. The Australian acts as if NSW is Australia and thus, until recently, seemed completely oblivious to how education actually worked in Victoria.

The evidence on private schools is not as you suggest. Most of their achievement is due to the students they enrol in the first place. I don’t have space to go through it all here, but you can do some research via the OECD.

Ben Jensen claimed that “between 2000 and 2009, expenditure increased more than 40 per cent” (“Funding consensus of school sectors the real test”, 6/3/2012, The Australian).

Frank Furedi referred to the Grattan Institute report to claim that there was “a large increase in spending” (“Raise status of teachers, add some authority and watch our students blossom”, 3-4/3/2012, The Australian).

Paul Kelly claimed that “over the 2000-2009 decade we boosted real spending on education by a hefty 44 per cent” (“Wake-up calls on Asia century”, 16-17/6/2012, The Australian).

Scott Prasser claimed that “in the past 10 years public spending on school education increased by 44 per cent in real terms” (“AEU blitz a class in bully tactics”, 4/7/2012, The Australian).

Christopher Pyne claimed that “over the past decade”, education spending increased “in real terms by 44 per cent” (“Better teachers, not more, the ‘education revolution’ we need”, 21-22/7/2012, The Australian).

Christopher Pyne claimed that “in the past 10 years, we have spent 44 per cent more on schools” (Labor’s ‘top five’ goal for schools”, 3/9/2012, The Australian),

Judith Sloan claimed that there had been “a more than 40 per cent” “increase in real-per-student spending” “over the past decade” (“ALP’s school zeal will have to wait until 2525”, 4/9/2012, The Australian).

Barry O’Farrell claimed that “education funding had increased by 40-50 per cent over the past decade” (“Do the maths: states cut as Gonski gives”, 13/9/2012, The Australian).

Judith Sloan claimed that there has been a “close to 40 per cent increase in per capita spending on schools” in the past decade (“Gold-medal clunkers on the road to nowhere”, 22-23/12/2012, The Australian).

It’s not only The Australian - Martin Dixon claimed that there had been “a 40 per cent increase in national education investment in the past decade” (“Student testing to step up a notch”, The Age, 12/12/2012) - but The Australian is a far more frequent offender.

In fact, the National Reports on Schooling in Australia show that government spending per student in Australia was $8,115 in 1999-2000 ($11,731 in 2012 dollars) and $13,544 in 2008-09 ($14,637 in 2012 dollars). That is a real increase of only 24.7 per cent, about half the oft-exaggerated 44/40/40-50 per cent.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports a real increase in per capita GDP over the ten years from 1998-99 to 2008-09 of 24.4 per cent. The relevance of this is that the salaries of teachers have to keep up to some extent with the general living standards of the population as a whole. Does anyone really think we would attract able people to teaching and retain them if that 24.7 per cent increase in education spending had not occurred and, as a consequence, the top Victorian teacher salary was now only $67,406 and the beginning salary was now only $45,696?

I have already mentioned a difference in tone between private and many State schools. Most of the students attending private schools started in State schools and would have remained in that system had not they and their parents encountered systemic problems in State schooling.

To be blunt they were failing to thrive. It was affecting them negatively. In that environment they could not expect to enjoy their schooling, be a motivated, self-actualising learner or realise their potential to be a happy, confident, competent individual.

In the State system many teachers have felt the same and many still do. It isn't about better pay, although more money around the house is always useful. Likewise it isn't about facilities.

Just as government can't manage housing and constantly pushes the responsibility and accountability onto the private sector, it also finds it impossible to manage education. There are many reasons for that. There are also many reasons why reviews and reports produced by government agencies and with government grants will bounce within the narrow rails of political ideology and political correctness.

Having had a lot to do with parents and students in both State and private education, what I can vouch for is that:

- there is an ever gathering tide of students from State to private schools and they say they would have done it earlier if it was financially possible. Many move at year 5 whereas in earlier years it was at the conclusion of primary schooling; and

- these are not stupid people. They do not make the choice lightly. They have tried the State system and found the experience so wanting and negative in their respect that there was no other alternative but leave. If one asks, all have considered other State schools but found the presenting deficiencies to be systemic and serious.

Chris,

Even your figures show that funding over 9 years increased by 67% using the figures for real value of money from the RBA this would give a 28% increase AFTER inflation or a 6% annual increase. The 44% could easily have included funding not covered by your sources.

This is no small increase yet the results have declined predominately in public schools.

Shadow,

I used the RBA calculator to convert the 1999-2000 and 2008-09 figures. As they are financial years, I took the CPI from December 1999 to December 2008. 14 637-11 731 = 2906. 2906/11731X100=24.7 per cent. I don’t know how you get 28 per cent.

If that increase had not occurred, education spending would have fallen dramatically as a percentage of the economy, producing either a relative decline in teacher pay or a decline in teacher numbers (Teachers account for some 84 per cent of the core recurrent expenditure in Victorian schools). No one would stay in teaching if the top salary had been $67,406. Teacher salaries have to keep pace with general living standards in order for teaching to remain an attractive job for able people.

The Grattan Institute report reference for its 44 per cent does not show a 44 per cent increase, so it is speculation as to where the figure came from. My sources are the official national statistics. I’d hope they included all spending.

The increase is close to zero when assessed on a realistic basis; i.e., in relation to the overall living standards of the country. The decline in student scores is more complex; e.g., PISA and TIMSS give very different results. There is also work by Andrew Leigh that tracks the decline in teacher training entry scores with the decline in teacher pay. Imagine how much worse those entry scores would be if the 24.7 per cent per student real increase (which is little more than economic growth) had not occurred and teacher pay had fallen even more dramatically in relation to overall pay than it has.