Pop quiz: What did you learn? What is the report? Commissioned by the Government in and chaired by businessman David Gonski, the review panel received more than 7, submissions, visited 39 schools, and consulted 71 education groups across Australia. It presented its findings to the Government in November , and the Government released that report, along with its initial response, in February

Author:Voll Tojasar
Country:Dominican Republic
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):12 November 2004
PDF File Size:8.29 Mb
ePub File Size:4.37 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Executive Summary Executive Summary The historic Gonski Review Report identified several highly concerning trends in the educational outcomes of Australian students. It found that over the past decade, the performance of Australian students had declined at all levels of achievement compared to international benchmarks.

In addition to declining performance, the review found that Australia has a significant gap between its highest and lowest performing students; far greater than in many OECD countries. Disturbingly, the review identified an unacceptable link between low levels of achievement and educational disadvantage, particularly among students from low socioeconomic and Indigenous backgrounds. They give all children opportunities for a good quality education Educational failure also imposes high costs on society.

School failure damages social cohesion and mobility, and imposes additional costs on public budgets to deal with the consequences — higher spending on public health and social support and greater criminality, among others.

For all these reasons, improving equity in education and reducing school failure should be a high priority in all OECD education policy agendas. The new funding model would provide a level of base funding to all schools and additional targeted funding to disadvantaged students in order to remove inequities and minimise the identified performance gap.

This new funding model was accompanied by an improvement framework for schools and teaching, with five areas of reform identified for implementation. However, following the federal election, and despite promises of a "unity ticket" on education policy, the Abbott Government has begun to effectively unpick the overwhelming consensus built during the Gonski Review and NPSI negotiations.

Such significant cuts jeopardise the widespread improvements in student outcomes that were to flow from a strategically funded needs-based model. As a result, the quality of education provided to those Australian school children most in need of additional support will remain inferior, and we will continue to fail to realise the full potential of our latent human capital. Assessing evidence from around Australia The committee conducted public hearings in six states and heard the views of a wide range of stakeholders: public, Catholic and independent school associations; parents, teachers, principals; unions and, in some cases, State and Territory Governments.

In addition to the public hearings, the committee received over submissions over the course of the inquiry. As part of the evidence gathered in its inquiry, the committee notes that a very significant majority of school funding stakeholders support the findings of the Gonski Review and the arrangements agreed under the NPSI.

The committee considers that without certainty, accountability and transparency in school funding, achieving high quality educational outcomes for Australian students will not be possible.

In particular, the changes will put at risk adequate funding for those students most at need, for example, students with disability. At the recent Budget Estimates, Coalition Senators wrongly claimed that it was the Abbott Government which had delivered a needs-based funding model.

After that, amendments to the Australian Education Act and the low level indexation of funding post will mean that schools and the students they support cannot rely on adequate funding. This in turn will lead to inferior results for those students most in need and will further exacerbate the widening gap of educational achievement.


David Gonski

His mother is Helene Blume. Early career[ edit ] Gonski practised as a solicitor with the firm of Freehills from to , becoming their youngest ever partner at age 35, before leaving to co-found an investment bank. WCC invested in the predecessor of Ten Network Holdings that eventually resulted in Westfield losing several hundred million dollars. He has also served on the Takeovers Panel , an advisory body for the Commonwealth government.


What's in the Gonski report?

Kijas Expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education as a percentage of GDP, It says there is an unacceptable link between low levels of achievement and educational disadvantage, particularly among students from low socioeconomic and Indigenous backgrounds. Gonski worked on his recommendations over a period of 18 months. But it is an even bigger mistake to imagine working-class and gonxki middle-class families are best served by splitting them up and dividing the scarce public dollar between them. NL pbk Main Reading Room. The report proposes arrangements that we believe will deliver a funding system that is transparent, equitable and financially sustainable.


Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools

Yesterday the states failed to sign up to the reforms but what does that really mean? Each of which is reformed without respect to the others, creating a veritable jungle of policies which limits accountability and contributes to growing resources and performance gaps between rich and poor schools, with disadvantaged students suffering most. Table 1: Basic school funding facts. ABS Schools Australia, cat. The states are responsible for running public schools, and for the accountability, regulatory and registration frameworks for all school sectors.


Equality PDF


Related Articles