The release of the Gonski review will kick off an important debate.
THERE are few political minefields as perilous to a government, particularly a Labor government, as education funding. On the one side, traditionally, are the supposed forces of privilege: the wealthy private schools and their old boys, even though many private schools, particularly Catholic schools, are not affluent. On the other are the supposed diehards of the left and the unions, demanding equality of opportunity, a reasonable aspiration in a country that eschews the notion of inherited privilege.
Naturally, this picture doesn't do justice to the complexity of the modern world, where more than one in three Australian children are educated in independent schools, and their parents may well be Labor supporters. The fact remains, though, that it is nigh on impossible for a government to please all parties, particularly a government handcuffed by a pledge to return the budget to surplus.
Which is, of course, exactly the position the Gillard government finds itself in as it braces for tomorrow's release of the review of education funding chaired by academic and businessman David Gonski.
As reported in today's Sunday Age, the review is expected to recommend a $5 billion injection of funds, to increase support for disadvantaged students, most of whom are in the public system, and fulfil a pledge not to cut private schools' entitlements in dollar terms. Significantly, it is also expected to provide for a lengthy consultation process, which will likely delay the budgetary pain of finding that money.
While advocates for both the public and private sectors have been vocal in putting their case, the government, perhaps optimistically, hopes the Gonski review will not trigger a major storm. Education Minister Peter Garrett said he wanted the country to have a ''mature, considered'' debate, while Prime Minister Julia Gillard said last week that ''families have moved beyond the old days of public versus private. So have we.''
It's no surprise that Labor is trying to pre-emptively hose down the controversy, given its rocky recent record in fighting this particular battle. Mark Latham's 2004 proposal to redirect money from 67 wealthy schools to the public system was a political debacle, and the party spent years not mentioning the (class) war. Showing the memory is still fresh, Ms Gillard yesterday explicitly rejected that model.
The truth is that school funding in Australia is ripe for an overhaul. The system, last revamped in 2001, is burdened by the then Howard government's promise that ''no school would be worse off'', a pledge that entrenched all manner of inconsistencies and inequities, and means about 1000 schools play by a separate set of rules. Some rich independent schools, for instance, receive public funds well in excess of what they could be said to require. Schools defend this on the grounds that it reduces fees and makes them affordable to a wider range of parents, but critics say the money has been ploughed back into facilities without any noticeable lowering of charges. What is indisputable is that the system is arbitrary, complex and lacking in transparency.
The months ahead will be tricky. Mr Garrett was right when he said on Friday that ''No child living in Australia in 2012 ought not to be able to achieve their full potential simply because of the way the schooling system operates … Education is a passport out of poverty.'' But achieving that lofty aim will be no simple task and, at the end of the day, funding is only part of the equation. What is important is that we get that part right, so Australia can get on with providing the best education possible to all its children.
And another thing ...
BELIEVE it or not, there is such a thing as breakfast beer, and Victoria is leading the way. Three Victorian brewers are joining forces at the Melbourne Food & Wine Festival to show off beers brewed with everything from caffeine to ''essence of fruit toast'' that are meant to be imbibed at breakfast. One breakfast cafe even somehow roasts its coffee beans in beer.
The Australian Drug Foundation is appalled, suggesting it is a slippery slope down which alcoholics will slide to ruin. There is no doubt Australia has an alcohol problem, but defenders of these new blends argue it's a bit of fun - like a champagne breakfast on special occasions. It's more likely to prove as big a problem for problem drinking as liqueur chocolates - and likely to be as popular as breakfast television, which, according to another Sunday Age story today, is not very.
.gif)
