Chris,

I am more than familiar with both economics and statistics, and am fully aware that by choosing particular frames of reference you can distort the statistical result. By cherry picking statements you have created a straw man argument.

Your analysis contains the following flaws:

1 Nearly all your quotes commented on the real increase in education expenditure, not necessarily government expenditure or by student.

2 The time frame of Dec 1999 to Dec 2008 is 9 years not the decade mentioned by most. A shift in just 6 months gave a calculated difference of 3%.

3 Most mentioned only an increase in real expenditure not per student.

4 Student numbers for 2000 to 2009 grew by 7.2%, 90% of which was in the non government sector. The government sector only grew by 1.2%. The 23% increase in non government students would represent a significant increase in education funding.

5 Finally, GDP growth is not a reliable indicator of wage growth increased by 52% in actual terms over the period 2000 to 2009 whilst school funding increased by 67%. Thus the fund increase has outstripped both CPI and average wage increases. (even when wages do not cover all cost increases.)

Shadow,

I have not been “cherry picking” statements. I have reproduced every statement that I came across in the press. Choosing particular frames of reference can change the results, which leads to the question of why the Grattan Institute picked nine years and not ten for its report. The statements I reproduced have changed the time period, changed the beginning year, changed the ending year, changed the amount and/or changed what the amount was referring to (a total, not a per student or per capita amount).

Yet it is meaningless to say that there has been an increase in expenditure without looking at how many people that expenditure covers. The time period I chose to find out the increase in expenditure per student was the one chosen by the Grattan Institute for its claim on total spending.

1. All the quotes follow the Grattan Institute report and seem to be based on it. I know that it referred to government expenditure because the footnote said it did and it quoted an increase in average private school fees of 25 per cent. This makes sense because the private school fees are per student and a 25 per cent increase is roughly similar to the 24.7 per cent increase in per student government expenditure.

2. The time frame comes from the Grattan Institute report and is for the financial years 1999/2000 to 2008/2009. Those quoting it are simply being sloppy and turning it into ten years. We know they are being sloppy because the figures for the most recent years were not available when they made their comments.

3. Most did mention an increase in real expenditure not per student, but the points are that their figures are wrong and what counts is the increase per student.

4. I am not sure what point you are making. The Grattan Institute gives a separate figure for private school fees.

5. You will have to explain this one to me please. Do you mean that average wages have increased in real terms by 52 per cent or that the total expenditure on wages in the economy has increased by 52 per cent?

Chris,

If you try and rubbish what people are saying, you need to find facts and figures on what they actually say, not on different time periods, and on what you think they should have said or might have meant.

If you can show me any of the above that said that real government expenditure per child increased by 44% from 1999 to 2008, then your analysis might have a point, otherwise no.

Secondly I had a look at wage growth (actual nor real) from 1999 to 2008 and found an average increase of about 52% compared to the governmnent growth in funding per child of 67%, so if thie was all consumed by teachers wages, then their standard of living grew faster than the rest of Australia.

In conclusion your analysis is flawed in almost every respect. The real funding per child has increased over the past decade, and educational results have gone backwards.

Shadow,

None of the articles from which I quoted gave any basis for the claim that education spending had increased by the various amounts over the various times claimed, other than the original Grattan Institute claim. In other words, nobody backed up what they said. The onus is on them to do so by giving the source for their claim. The timing of their claims in relation to the original Grattan Institute claim is consistent with their simply repeating or embellishing what they thought the Grattan Institute had said. It is factually impossible to say that we have increased education spending by any particular amount “in the past 10 years” as Christopher Pyne for example does because the figures for 2010, 2011 and 2012 are still not available. I checked the ACARA website tody and the most recent report, 2010, still does not give the figures for that year in it.

In any case, my response to them has been to say that the increase in total expenditure is not what matters but that what matters is the increase per student. To claim an increase of 40 or 50 per cent means nothing unless we know what the increase per student is. This is obvious. We could have doubled the total expenditure and spent exactly the same per student because the enrolment had doubled.

Judith Sloan claimed that real expenditure per student increased by “more than 40 per cent” and real expenditure per capita increased by “close to 40 per cent”. I have already given you the details of the articles in which she said it.

The real increase per student from the official figures is 24.7 per cent for 1999-2000 to 2008-09. The Grattan Institute also claims an average increase in private school fees of 25 per cent over that period, so expenditure on both government and private school students has increased by roughly the same amount. (We will leave aside the fact that a mere increase in the proportion of students attending secondary school will increase the overall average as secondary schools spend more per student than primary schools because they have better staffing ratios).

It is misleading of various journalists, politicians and commentators to conceal the per student increase and it is dishonest of The Australian to refuse to publish what that that increase is are because the concealment of relevant facts distorts the debate.

The question of standards is complex. TIMSS and PISA report different results because they test different things and different year levels. Thus, TIMMs reports a very poor result for grade 4 reading, but PISA leaves Australia a little behind where is used to be but still one of the world’s high-performing systems. See http://theconversation.edu.au/latest-tests-show-pms-2025-education-goal-is-in-doubt-11292 for a discussion.

We can discuss why Australia’s performance has fallen in comparison with other countries. There are far too many factors to deal with in a blog post. But, for the reasons I have already given, things would be worse of we had not increased spending. You have to increase spending in real terms as the economy grows just to stand still. If you don’t do so, you drive the best people out of education into more rewarding areas. It’s not just a matter of being able to buy the same stuff you could 20 or 30 years ago. It’s being able to buy the same stuff that other people can now.