A two year process of research, consultation, public input and expert consideration and analysis is a reasonable route to follow for a government-appointed independent inquiry into a major policy issue, and there is no question that school funding is such a major issue.
But when that lengthy and costly process leads directly into a further protracted process of consultation, public input and bureaucratic consideration, the value of the initial inquiry is open to question.
When Julia Gillard, as Education Minister, appointed the Gonski review of school funding in April 2010, it was with a promise that an objective and balanced assessment of the claims and counter-claims in this highly politicised area would lay to rest the long-running acrimonious debate about school funding arrangements and provide expert advice as a foundation for government action.
Instead, the Gonski panel has recommended a complete overhaul of funding, involving readjustment of entrenched Commonwealth-state responsibilities, the estabishment of new bureaucratic structures in each jurisdiction, and ongoing uncertainty for schools.
While the full 250 page Gonski report released at 1pm on 20 February 2012 warrants a more detailed examination than has yet been possible and may well reveal a strong rationale for its proposed revolution in funding, at face value the main proposals and the government's response to them hold little promise for school funding to become more effective and equitable in the near future.
The main recommendations of the review are for a comprehensive approach to funding which would entail a realignment of current Commonwealth and state roles, the payment of a base grant for every student, the provision of additional funding according to need and the introduction of a schooling resource standard.
The purpose of this overhaul is to bring greater coherence and consistency to the current complex funding arrangements, in the expectation that this will raise education achievement and increasing equity. The aim of greater coherence and consistency is commendable, but may well have been achieved by reform of the present arrangements rather than a complete revolution.
The link between education performance and either the quantum of resources or the allocative mechanism is generally considered at least indirect, and by most researchers weak. A strong focus on elements of schooling such as teacher and principal quality, early intervention, targeted programs with proven success at overcoming educational disadvantage, choice, autonomy and accountability is where differences in performance can really be addressed.
The concept of a base grant for each student and