With the change of government in Australia it looks likely that the essence of the Gonski funding will be canned1.
The issue is that Australian education is underfunded and that limited promises to increase funding have been dumped with a change of governments. Gonski itself presents strengths and weaknesses that get to the core of the Australian education. The Gonski funding model was initially introduced to close the disadvantage faced by some schools, however it did not look at sectors but rather schools and students within them. It left intact the classist nature of the different systems of schools, reinforced the neoliberal hegemony by focussing on choice, but did implement some social justice through looking at disadvantage. It also interacted with culture in odd ways, such as compensating Indigenous disadvantage, but leaving minority schools, such as the Catholic system, under mixed public funding models.
Gerirtz may consider the cutting of the Gonski funds an attack on social privilege, because it undercuts funds designated to the poorer and weaker sections of the education community. She may also have pointed out the original Gonski approach was a neo-fabian approach, that sought to lessen inequality within an inequitable structure, rather than change the structure itself2. Although the neo-fabian approach (in my opinion) was preferable to the neo-liberal (no additional funding) it is still inadequate (the original Gonski gave money to underserving, inequality perpetuating private schools as well as public ones). Perhaps this is conjecture but Lentin & Titley3 and Ho4 may have detected more than a whiff of irony in a neo-liberal education remake that favoured privileged subcultures (Christian independent schools for instance) at the expense of Indigenous students, who would have benefited far more comprehensively under the Gonski than other privileged cultural identities. This ties in with the subtle racism of neo-conservatism as indicated by Giroux.
My opinion is that the Gonski reforms were paltry to begin with. Initially they were well intentioned and could have lessened inequality, but not destroyed it. They could have lessened it by targeting under privileged groups for additional funding but they could not have destroyed inequality because they helped preserve, fund and ignored the issues of an already inequitable system. Thus it was neo-fabian, it lessened the blow of class, but class remained intact in the different school systems. The cutting of these funds is weak and exacerbates the class divide. It is done by a spivish neoliberal to neoconservative government that uses rhetoric around choice to justify oppression and the subtle racism of identity politics to disadvantage public school students and Indigenous students but not wealthy predominantly Christian ones, in so doing it also perpetuates gender and sexuality oppression through preserving these patriarchal church groups. Weak.
1.
Facebook, NSW Teacher’s Federation, Timeline Photos, October 9,
2013, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=619439778106194&set=a.116889511694559.33301.113888451994665&type=1&theater.
2.
Gewirtz, S., “Conceptualizing
social justice in education: mapping the territory,” Journal of Education Policy, 13(4) (1998), 473-4. doi: 10.1080/0268093980130402.
3.
A. Lentin and G. Titley, The Crisis of Multiculturalism: Racism in a
Neoliberal Age (London: Zed Books, 2011).
4.
C. Ho, “Respecting the Presence of Others: School Microrepublics
and Everyday Multiculturalism,” Journal
of Intercultural Studies, 32(6) (2011): 603-619.
Sam, although Gonski may have failed in identifying and accommodating inequality entirely, wouldn’t you agree it is a positive step? Fabian principles are defined by gradual increments and reforms towards the socialist agenda. Gonski would align with those principles would it not?
ReplyDeleteA policy reform looking through the lenses of educational sectors, rather than schools and students, is a more equitable and just approach in my opinion. You argue a sector-based reform is a means of observing inequalities as a whole: “[Gonski] did not look at sectors but rather schools and students within them.” I think you and I agree on many things Sam, but this we disagree.
To examine the current funding arrangements by a sector-based approach would further entrench the opaque, inconsistent and ineffective gulf between the highest and lowest performing schools and students. The sector they represent, the schools and students within them does not correlate a continuity of expectations, equality, equity and academic success. I am a public school purist, there is no denying it, but for reformist policy, it is important to implement a policy that aligns with the philosophy it wishes to reform within the educational sphere.
I am interested to see how you feel in the autonomy of schools? Would you prefer a national system? In my opinion, I believe Labor’s national system and centralization is a fundamental flaw. Rather, individual, flexible, transparent and community-based arrangements from states and territories should be negotiated. Gonski maintains my belief in the little faith the Commonwealth’s role in schooling. However, it is a fine line between autonomy and neoliberalism. Something that Abbot’s backflip on Gonski will have to tread and negotiate, because we all know the ‘needs-based model’ of Gonski’s proposal does not align with neoliberal privatisation. I’m sure we both agree the neoliberal agenda, and the constitutional boundaries and strengthening autonomy rhetoric will be heard despite ‘supporting’ Gonski’s reforms. Christopher Pyne will not wear an invisibility cloak no matter how much we wish it.
Alex, I hope I’ll be forgiven for both the lateness of this reply and recently editing my original post. Perhaps you may also forgive me for contradicting myself, having my cake and eating it too (all of it).
DeleteI do think that Fabianism is acceptable. Compared to nothing or going backwards it is certainly preferable. Nevertheless I would like to see a more complete transformation – as I feel would you. With the guts ripped out of Gonski it may well be used to strengthen the divide, by making things a little more equitable but maintaining an inequitable route system. As a social justice oriented ‘purist’ perhaps you share my concern. It’s better than promised, the original was a step but probably a step to nowhere and not really good enough. To say nothing of the cut version.
We may disagree in terms of sector discontinuity…overall the three (four?) tier system holds but I do think the individual approach is less blunt. There are Catholic schools which fare worse than public schools, I have also heard of Jewish schools like this. They buck the trend, but it is still important to cater for these disadvantaged (private) students.
Why reform? Why not revolt.
Your idea of the bottom up anarcho approach is nice but I do not think that the state is ready to ‘whither away’ just yet (tears fell into Marx’s beard). Failing that I would prefer an efficient centralised approach to a noodle bowl soup of arrangements between territories, states and localities that still fail to give complete autonomy to communities. Perhaps here I am having my social democrat cake and eating my anarchist icing too.
We both are wary of neo-liberal weasel words on autonomy. An observation I applaud, comrade.