Further evidence has emerged of policy disarray in The Greens, with the party's NSW Senate candidate the latest to attempt to sell a mixed message. Lee Rhiannon is the Greens lead Senate candidate in NSW. While not the Party's education spokesperson, she outlines a clear agenda to radically alter the funding arrangements for non-government schools.

In a document entitled "NSW Greens Public Schools Vision" and accompanying speech notes Ms Rhiannon confirms the objective is to "remove the public funding of the wealthiest private schools" and instead redirect it to public schools.

Ms Rhiannon also confirms that funding for independent schools would be wound back to 2003 levels because, she claims, they have received "massive increases in their funding since 2003". This money would be 'redirected' to public schools creating reduced class sizes, and increases in teacher numbers.

The real effect of this policy would be to cause massive reductions in government support for students from low and middle income families who, for religious beliefs or other reasons choose independent schools. (Around 90% of non-government schools have a religious faith basis).

Underlying the Greens policy and rhetoric is a flawed notion that all non-government school parents are rich, and that only public schools serve poorer communities. The objective evidence provided by the MySchools data shows this to be untrue; a polemic designed to divide. An analysis of ICSEA (the measure of relative need that underpinss the MySchool data) shows that CSA schools, for example, have an average ICSEA of 997. This is only slightly above (i.e. only slightly less needy) than the average of all government schools (994), and less than (more needy than) the defined national mean of 1,000. 

What is not plainly stated, is that the Greens policy cuts funding in two ways. Independent school funding is currently calculated on a per-student basis. The increase Ms Rhiannon complains about has come about because enrolments have increased in the independent sector (mainly in faith-based schools) and remained steady in government schools. The Greens policy would reduce the total pool of funding for independent schools, meaning - as enrolments continue to grow - less government support per student.

Funding for students in non-government schools is also provided on a needs-based formula. The more needy the school's community, the less per-student funding they receive.This formula currently does not apply to government schools. The Greens policy would cut independent school funding across the board and return to the bad old days where funding was not linked to a needs-based index. Helpful information about how independent school funding worlks can be found on the ISCA website here. Among other facts, it shows that cost of educating the average student in a non government school is shared as follows - Parents and community: 59%, Government: (all govt funding) 41%.  

Contradictory or confused?

Despite her own clear statements about returning to the (lower) funding levels of the pre-2003 formula, and redirecting funds, Ms Rhiannon makes the startling claim that "despite the noise coming from some groups, our funding measures would not cause a single non-government school to close or need to raise its fees".

Faced with substantial cuts in funding few non-government schools would survive without substantial fee increases. It doesn't take much effort to work out that if directing money away from independent schools to government schools would allow the latter to reduce class sizes and increase teacher numbers, the opposite effect would occur in the schools that lose funding. That is, unless they increase fees substantially. When government support is reduced, fees have to go up. There is no other source of funding despite Ms Rhiannon's curious ideas about "wealthy private schools". Where parents could not afford such increases, such as the lower and middle socio-economic communities served by CSA schools, closures may well result.

Whatever Ms Rhiannon and her colleagues may choose to believe, the reality simply is that schools such as those in CSA are non-profit, community-based charitable institutions who, by their very nature, exist to serve the purpose of making Christian faith-based schooling an affordable and accessible choice for families. The Greens threaten that purpose.

Ms Rhiannon might not simply be confused however. Her curious contradictory statements confirm the internal disarray over the Greens education policy. Greens Senate Leader Bob Brown has said that the Greens policy stands, however extra money for public schools would not be taken from independent schools because of the policies of the Government and Opposition! Senator Brown further suggests that in any case it doesn't matter, because the mining tax will provide the money instead. Senator Brown was questioned about this curious line in a recent interview by Virginia Trioli on ABC2.

Senator Brown's twisted logic undermines his own policy in its attempts to hide the real intentions of his party and candidates such as Lee Rhiannon. Such disarray and divisiveness should not be rewarded by allowing them any further influence in the nation's Parliament.