Q&A: Government's Gonski 2.0 plan under fire in high school special

Extract from ABC News

By Kate Higgins

Updated about 5 hours ago

Video: Q&A: 'You weren't elected to play the blame game' (ABC News)

Related Story: Student outcomes on Turnbull's mind after Senate unlocks Gonski billions

Related Story: Probyn: Gonski's passed but the politics of school funding will continue

Related Story: 'Needs-based funding': The words you are about to hear a lot and what they mean

Education Minister Simon Birmingham has been taken to task by a high school student who confronted him over whether it was fair to continue to direct Commonwealth funds to private schools, while their public counterparts couldn't afford to print their resources on paper.

In the second Q&A high school special, Geordie Brown, from Oxley High School in Tamworth, said the education system was "failing" students and teachers.
"I think it is really unjust to public schools who are still actually in need of more funding to sort of put them to the side, and still give funding to private schools," he said.
"I'm not saying eliminate all private school funding, but I think there does need to be some reductions."

How 'Gonski 2.0' will affect schools

The Government's proposed needs-based system will benefit some schools more than others.

Geordie and Senator Birmingham were joined on the panel by three other high school students — Nadia Homem from Burwood Girls' High School in western Sydney, Arthur Lim from Moorebank High School south-west of Sydney, and Lauren McGrath-Wild from the Presbyterian Ladies' College in western Sydney — as well as deputy federal Labor leader and Opposition education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek.
Host Tony Jones had to step in to hose down a fiery back-and-forth between Ms Plibersek and Senator Birmingham over the Government's $23.5 billion Gonski 2.0 plan, which passed the Senate in June, with Ms Plibersek arguing some wealthy private schools would unnecessarily benefit under the scheme.

Video: Q&A: Birmingham and Plibersek clash over education funding (ABC News)

Senator Birmingham: Your government's policy was no school will lose a dollar and everybody got guaranteed certain rates of increase.
Ms Plibersek: The Kings School goes up in Sydney, Geelong Grammar goes up, Churchie in Brisbane goes up. By millions.
Senator Birmingham: We said we should stick to the formula the Gonski panel recommended, that is based on a needs-based calculation of Indigenous student numbers.
Ms Plibersek: How does The Kings School need more money? Seriously.
Senator Birmingham: … If you're going to have a Gonski needs-based formula.
Ms Plibersek: This isn't needs-based.
Senator Birmingham: That is the fourth time you've interrupted me.
Ms Plibersek: You can't make it up.
Jones: It's a good idea to let Simon finish his point.
Ms Plibersek: I've heard it all before. He makes stuff up.

Senator Birmingham was then interrupted "very respectfully" by Geordie.
"I want to put this in perspective for you, because I'm from a rural and remote area," Geordie said, addressing the Education Minister.

"I go to a school which has to put really strict conditions on each faculty based on how much paper they can print out of a printer, because we don't have enough funding to print resources on paper.

"It's not acceptable, from my point of view, it's not acceptable for you to sit there and to say something like, 'If Labor were in government we'd be in this situation'.
"Because at the end of the day, the Australian public elected you as the Government, and you are in a responsible position now to fix these problems. You weren't elected to play the blame game."

Panel split on same-sex marriage survey, Safe Schools

Sex education was also a hot-button issue for the panel.

Who supports same-sex marriage? And who doesn't?

Data from Australia's longest-running lifestyle survey shows an overwhelming tide of support toward the rights of same-sex couples within Australian society.

One audience member said the same-sex marriage postal survey had put many young peoples' sexualities and gender identities "under attack".

"Don't LGBTI Australians have a right to identity and sexual education on par with heterosexual counterparts?" the questioner asked.

Nadia agreed with the audience member, and suggested the $122 million funnelled into the postal survey could have been better spent in the classroom.
"That should have gone to at least funding mental health programs for the LGBT youth," she said.

Video: Q&A: Panel divided on merits of SSM postal survey (ABC News)

But other panellists were supportive of the postal survey — both Arthur and Lauren said they believed it was the best way to gauge the level of community support for same-sex marriage.
Lauren said while the controversial Safe Schools program presented "some legitimate concerns for religious schools", its anti-bullying message was important.
"I think what it stands for is something really great, and that is stopping the discrimination against LGBT youth at school," she said.

"I think perhaps Safe Schools isn't the right answer, but I think some of the things it stands for need to be implemented."

Geordie disagreed with some of his fellow panellists about the survey, calling it "ludicrous to suggest it's a good thing".
"It hasn't been a respectful debate at all," he said.
Senator Birmingham said he thought it was "right" that many state governments had taken elements from the Safe School program and incorporated them into "inclusive" education programs.
On the postal survey, he said that while "many people don't like the process", a strong Yes vote could buoy the LGBTI communities.

"If it is a very strong Yes vote, I think we will have seen a very strong public affirmation of support for Australians in the lesbian, gay [and] transgender communities, and it will be a very positive thing," he said.