Saying so doesn't make it so. This was my initial reaction to the Prime Minister's announcement of the Government's formal response to the Gonski Report. I was struck by the prevalence of rhetoric and lack of detail in response to a detailed report that was presented more than eight months ago.
A central thrust of Gonski was that additional funds need to be directed towards students who experience disadvantage. The Government accepts that schools with students who face additional challenges would be entitled to additional funding. New money would be directed to pay for teachers' aides, specialist literacy and numeracy coaches and new resources. There would be continuity and certainty to such funding.
These additional funds and loadings would fund every student identified as being at disadvantage, irrespective of the school the student attends.
It is difficult to disagree with the principle behind this. The how and to what effect will be the critical points.
The question of where the extra money will be found is largely ducked by the Prime Minister. A purported $6.5 billion is to be phased in, from after the next election until 2020. Many commentators argue that this figure is significantly understated, if all promises are to be kept.
State governments provide almost 75 per cent of funding for education, yet rather extraordinarily the PM said 'We will now start discussions with state and territory governments, and Catholic and independent schools, over the details of our plan' (emphasis mine).
The credibility of the Prime Minister in announcing a policy response in such a critical area before reaching agreement with the states may also be questioned. Without the states coming on board, and finding their share of the money, the implementation of Gonski is impossible.
This point was illustrated graphically when the Catholic and independent schools sectors were informed by the NSW Government that their funding would be cut significantly from 2013, leading to fee rises of up to $500 per student. State schools were also to suffer undisclosed cuts.
To what extent these cuts, made without any consultation or warning — and after next year's budgets have been determined in many schools, are the result of over-stretched state budgets or are part of the clearing of decks before negotiations commence between state and federal authorities over implementing Gonski, is uncertain.
True, the projected cuts may not occur, as