Click here to download the Position paper (108Kb pdf file). The unformatted text is published below.
POLICY POSITION STATEMENT EQUITY FUNDING OF SCHOOLS This statement addresses: (i) the general framework of equity funding, (ii) the identification of disadvantage and (iii) accountability matters Based on workshops held at the 2008 National Conference in Perth and discussions at the ASPA Executive in November 2008
Agreed at ASPA Executive Meeting November 2008. Adopted by the SASPA Board in May 2009.
AN EQUITY FUNDING MODEL FOR SCHOOLS
ASPA supports a National Partnership approach as an opportunity to address a range of features of existing mechanisms that are inhibiting the impact which commonwealth funding might otherwise have on students and schools suffering significant disadvantage. Above all, we support efforts to ensure that equity funding actually has a detectable impact where it is most needed. ASPA supports a funding arrangement with the following characteristics:
1. THE FRAMEWORK 1. The funding base should be sufficient to actually make a measurable difference within the individual school situation. Spreading a small overall quantum too thinly over all schools has been shown to have little or no impact in terms of student outcomes. 2. The guidelines accompanying funding should not constrain schools from responding to local need in flexible and innovative ways. 3. An essential focus of the funding framework must be the enhancement of a school's capacity to be able to deal with multiple disadvantage e.g. socioeconomic, disability. 4. ASPA supports the use of a base plus sliding scale model, rather than a stepped approach to funding. 5. The funding response to successful programs should not be a reduction or withdrawal of funding. While the conditions of disadvantage continue to exist, the funding should continue to support the school's efforts in addressing them with successive cohorts. 6. Funding should flow directly to the schools where the need has been identified and jurisdictions should not set up processes which have the effect of diminishing the funding received by schools. 7. Explicit arrangements should ensure that existing State funding does not diminish through the application of Commonwealth grants.
2. IDENTIFYING DISADVANTAGE
8. Any indices of funding should be transparent and should focus as directly as possible on the individual student/family and avoid flawed, indirect measures such as school or residential postcode. 9. The components of a disadvantage index must include Aboriginality, as well as other direct measures or close correlates of disadvantage such as parent occupation, student mobility, parent education level, NESB status, etc, 10. The identification processes recognise that pockets of disadvantage can exist in all areas, even relatively affluent districts. 11. Funding decisions should also take account of recent research indicating the compounding effects of concentrated and/or multiple disadvantages ("density") at the school level. 3. ACCOUNTABILITY 12. ASPA supports the monitoring and evaluation of funding programs on the basis of changes in student outcomes, appropriately measured. The first evaluation should occur after 12 months of effective implementation. 13. Accountability needs to be focused on trend analysis of multiple, realistic measures such as attendance, retention, completion rates, destination data, etc as well as test results. The detail of these processes should be the focus of ongoing consultation and should be related closely to the context of the individual school. 14. ASPA is in a position to provide authoritative input to the governance and evaluation of funding programs.
|
