Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Human Services (Senator Kim Carr) to a question without notice asked by Senator Wright today relating to education funding.

I want to note in particular the Prime Minister's statement that she will introduce legislation to give every child an entitlement to an excellent education. The question that I—I think reasonably—asked was: how is that to be achieved when the legislation she is describing contains no firm commitment of money from the government and is, by its own clauses, unenforceable? That does not create an entitlement; that is just rhetoric, just a wish list. So I asked: where has Gonski gone? How much additional funding will the government actually invest in public education, which is chronically underfunded and educating, as it does, the great majority of Australia's most disadvantaged students?

The Gonski review has found that Australia's international performance in education has declined over the last decade and that underfunding of public education has led to a deep inequity in Australia's school system, which, unfortunately and tragically for the students involved, deprives us as a society of the full potential of those students—the full potential of our children. The Gonski review recommended that a significant increase in funding is required across all schooling sectors, with the largest part of this increase flowing to the government sector because of the significant numbers and greater concentration of disadvantaged students attending government schools. The Gonski review also recommended that our nation embrace a new schools funding model that seeks to address this inequity and improve overall student performance by providing funding on the basis of student need.

Since the Gonski review was released publicly in February, the Australian Greens have been calling for legislation to implement its recommendations urgently and by the end of this year. Last week the government's draft education bill was finally released, and we expect the bill to be introduced this week. After such a long wait it was very disappointing to see that it was essentially an exercise in rhetoric rather than meaningful action. It did not contain the means to implement the reforms and to create that entitlement that the Prime Minister has referred to, the recommendations put forward by the Gonski review. It does contain some commendable principles, but they are not worth anything if they are not enforceable. Most importantly, the new funding model that we have been waiting for is still nowhere to be seen.

We know that this coming year will be make or break for our schools. Gonski has provided clear evidence of a broken system and a way forward on how it can be fixed. This is the best opportunity we have had for decades to reform what is essentially an inequitable and broken schools funding system, and we must grasp that opportunity. There are too many students in Australia who will be disadvantaged if we do not. We must not squander this opportunity. We need action now, and our public education system needs investment now. We must legislate for Gonski, and we must make a serious investment in our schools and the future of our children.

Furthermore, I raised questions about the fact that this government has presided over a system of ramped up NAPLAN testing that has now become so competitive—so high stakes—that it is having an adverse impact on student wellbeing, as identified in a University of Melbourne study released this week. It is affecting not only student wellbeing and health but also the breadth and richness of the curriculum being offered to Australia's students. The evidence is that teachers, terrified of the judgement that is attracted by NAPLAN results, are increasingly teaching to the test, running practice tests on a weekly basis—which causes boredom among the students—and restricting the curriculum they are working with. They are essentially translating to students the concern and the anxiety that they feel about the fact that they are going to be so badly judged.

I refer to an article by Christopher Bantick, who says:

The fact is that NAPLAN was never intended to be a test of school performance. It has morphed into this. There is massive pressure on schools and individual teachers to lift their school results. The logical consequence is to teach to the test.

Unfortunately, because of the competition and because of the high-stakes nature of this, teaching now is not based on good pedagogy, is not based on enriching the curriculum and is not based on teaching and preparing our students for the future that they will need to embrace. It is actually about a simplistic way of comparing schools and judging teacher performance that does not have any strong evidence base. So, I put it to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Minister Garrett, that rather than denying the credit of the study they should respond to it. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.