By Alex Bainbridge
Education is one of the indicators traditionally used to gauge the level of civilisation, social justice and democracy in a society. Now it appears that both the major parties are committed to deregulating and privatising education at the expense of widespread access and quality.
The Coalition's policy is centred on creating a deregulated education "market" totally dominated by privatisation and user pays, according to a report by the Australian Teachers' Union. This includes three main points: a voucher system of funding, complete deregulation of fees and an end to restrictions on enrolments.
The Liberals propose that schools, universities and TAFEs receive funding only indirectly, through "vouchers" (or National Education Awards — NEAs — in the case of higher education) issued directly to students. Students then approach specific institutions to study, and the institutions receive funding on the basis of the number of students they attract.
The rationale behind this move is right-wing market ideology: a free market will lead to more choice for "consumers" of education, the successful institutions will survive, the unsuccessful will not.
However, as with any market, consumption of the education "commodity" is based, not on social needs, but on an individual's ability to pay. Because vouchers are accompanied by deregulation of fees and an end to restrictions on enrolments, institutions will have the option of charging fees over and above the funding supplied with the voucher.
Thus a differentiation is created between the reputable (expensive) institutions and cheaper ones. A London Times Education Supplement article in October observed that increased market "choice" in the Scottish education system led to greater differentiation between "good" and "poor" education, particularly along class lines.
Private and state schools will both receive funding from student vouchers. While individual state school principals and administrations will have more scope to modify their courses, the emphasis is likely to shift away from providing an education to making schools marketable. This could include measures like sponsorship, private input of resources and either direct or indirect fee payments. Schools that are able to attract
"business" would be better positioned to provide better "service" and attract better teachers at higher wages. Schools that could not compete would tend to be run down by lack of resources.
Competition between schools is also likely to create extra pressure on teachers and students to perform well in exams, the only way to measure comparative quality. Thus non-examinable areas would tend to be de-emphasised.
It would also be possible to decrease the value of the voucher over time, thus reducing public spending and increasing private spending.
In higher education, the Coalition proposes a similar system of vouchers (NEAs), which would have similar effects in terms of creating a differentiation between institutions.
The Coalition's proposals follow years of cutbacks to public education by the ALP. In fact the ALP has been directing education more and more towards user pays, privatisation and the needs of big business.
Direct government funding to higher education has decreased from $9870 per student in 1983 to $7302 in 1991. During the same time, the number of students paying full up-front fees has increased. Many universities earn large amounts of money from non-government sources: Melbourne Uni, at the top of the list, gets approximately half of its revenue from other than direct government funding. Thus the distinction between private and public education is more blurred in higher education.
Total education funding has been cut from 5.8% of GDP in the late '70s to 5.4% at the beginning of the Hawke Labor government to 4.7% in 1989-90. Funding cuts are a way of decreasing the weight of public education and justifying privatisation.
Thus while the government has been reducing education funding, first the $250 administration fee and then the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) were introduced. Already overseas students and many postgraduate students pay full up-front fees, which can amount to tens of thousands of dollars.
Higher education enrolments increased 36% between 1987 and 1991, with many universities experiencing gross overcrowding and strain on resources. Now the ALP argues that the main growth should take place in TAFE (funded at $3333 per student, less than half of the rate for higher education). TAFE students are generally charged significant up-front fees, and most courses are vocationally oriented to suit the needs of big business.
The government introduced a number of changes to Austudy in the last budget, the main one a loan scheme called the Austudy Supplement. This allows students to "trade in" up to $2000 of their grant and borrow twice the amount they have traded in. This weakens the income support scheme, because it leaves the option for the government to reduce the value of the grant over time and force students to rely more and more on loans and other user pays mechanisms.
The Coalition too is in favour of Austudy loans; it wants to make Austudy grants "better targeted" — i.e. means-tested and available to fewer students. Austudy was already available to fewer than 40% of students in 1992, at a rate less than 70% of the poverty line.
Our education system needs a major overhaul and a massive injection of funds to make up for the cutbacks of the last 10 years. But both major parties are committed to making education more elitist, more privatised and more reliant on user pays.