The federal government would stop funding public schools while continuing to support private schools under a dramatic change to the nation's education system outlined by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
You have got to ask yourself whether we should not have clearer lines of responsibility
Labor immediately accused Mr Turnbull of "walking away" from public school students and said the move would undo decades of work, including the Gonski school reforms, to lift standards in all the nation's schools. The proposal was originally contained in a discussion paper leaked to Fairfax Media last year.
The federal government could walk away from its role in funding state schools under a tax reform proposal floated by ...
The federal government could walk away from its role in funding state schools under a tax reform proposal floated by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Mr Turnbull on Wednesday outlined his plans for states to be able to raise a proportion of income tax for the first time since WWII, a move he said would make them more accountable for the services they deliver.
On Thursday Mr Turnbull named school education as one area where the federal government could wind back its involvement if states could raise their own revenue.
"You could make a very powerful case for example that, if there was a revenue sharing, if the states had access to a portion of income tax, that they would have the resources and the money [to] have the responsibility for state schools," Mr Turnbull told ABC radio.
"I suspect no federal government would retreat from funding and continuing to support the non-government school sector because there would be a concern that they would not get a fair go from state governments who obviously would have a competing interest with their schools.
"But in terms of state schools, state education, government schools, if the states had the money, if they had the money from a share of the tax base, would they not do a better job managing those schools themselves?
"That would be a question to ask the education ministers: does the education minister in Canberra know better how to run a primary school in Tasmania or South Australia or Western Australia than the education minister in those states?"
Mr Turnbull said that the national curriculum should remain in place but the constant "arm wrestling" about who has responsibilities for schools should end.
"We have a massive education department in Canberra, in the federal government, but we don't employ any teachers. You have got to ask yourself whether we should not have clearer lines of responsibility."
Labor school education spokeswoman Kate Ellis accused Mr Turnbull of advocating "an extraordinary abandonment of public education".
"This would lead to a drift away from public schooling and bring back divisive debates from decades past about the different school sectors.
"The Commonwealth has been playing a role in public education since the 1970s.
"The Gonski reforms were all about ensuring we move to a national system where all our schools are up to standard."
Ms Ellis said federal governments have only been able to drive reforms such as Gonski, the national curriculum and the My School website because they allocate funds to public schools.
"This is an incredibly reckless, ill-considered idea," she said.
One of the nation's most experienced education bureaucrats, Ken Boston, last year slammed the proposal for the federal government to abdicate funding for public schools as "completely foreign" to the equity principles underpinning the Gonski funding model.
"This would be the antithesis of Gonski," Dr Boston said, referring to the review's model of a needs-based funding model which applies equally across all school sectors.
"The idea should be ruled out completely."
@smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
MEANWHILE the Murdoch media is keeping it real by following up their 'balanced' discourse on the teaching of history in our universities with this piece of crap...