1. 1 Blueprint Funding Reform Resource Allocation Model

2. 2 Blueprint for Reform In May 2003, Minister Kosky outlined a vision for education reform, that would result in : better outcomes for all students; a system that is innovative and creative a system that supports every school to improve; and makes a real difference to those individuals and groups of students for whom our schools are currently not delivering.

3. 3 The Blueprint for Government Schools The Government's reform agenda is outlined in the document The Blueprint for Government Schools. The Blueprint contains strategies and initiatives that will bring about improvements in learning outcomes for students. The RAM is one of these strategies. Other Blueprint strategies are aimed at building leadership capacity, creating a performance and development culture, improving schools and improving strategies for student learning.

4. 4 Why the existing model needs to change Complex – time consuming for principals and teachers Inequitable Highlights dollars spent rather than education outcomes achieved Lacks flexibility and discourages innovation Doesn’t effectively target student needs

5. 5 Broad Government Framework Allocations to government schools to be based on: − a core amount, consisting of a per-student price; and − an amount to cover overheads The core amount would be adjusted to reflect:  school characteristics;  student and family/community characteristics; and  levels of schooling Funding would be linked to the planning and accountability mechanisms for schools The costs of school education would be benchmarked on a rolling basis to determine the relative costs by levels of schooling

6. 6 The Research Prof Richard Teese

7. 7 Asked to research CORE funding Rurality LOTE And on the equity side: Special Learning Needs ESL Purpose :Can we improve outcomes through better resource delivery?

8. 8 The Core Components of the New Model

9. 9 Concept of the Core The new model comprises Core Funding allocated to schools via: − a Per-Student Price plus: − a Base Amount. The majority of funding is to be provided through the Per-Student Price, with the Base Amount being a safety net.

10. Stages of Learning Relativities

11. 11 Stages of Learning Relativities The key factors that determine the different costs of delivering education are: Supply side − Teaching allotments − Class sizes − Academic programs (level of cognitive demand) − Specialist teaching resources − Organisational differences Demand Side − Relative diversity in student learning − Relative behavioural/cultural diversity of students − High rates of retention − Subject preferences and program option demands − High levels of tertiary aspiration

12. 12 Base Amount A Base amount ensures that all schools, regardless of size, have sufficient resources to operate – a safety net Extensive research and modelling was undertaken. This work comprised: - analysis of fixed vs variable costs; - Ensuring ongoing viability of schools; and - examination of base funding regimes in other comparable educational jurisdictions.

13. 13 Base Amount A number of options have been modelled. In our view - due to economies of scale - larger schools receive sufficient funds through the Per-Student Price. This is reflected in the preferred approach – which is a base that tapers to zero at threshold points. This approach is consistent with other comparable jurisdictions.

14. 14 Base Amount – Enrolment Linked Base Enrolment Linked Base Enrolment Base Amount ($)

15. 15 Rurality & Isolation Current R&I funding is composed of : -Rural Size Adjustment funding to compensate for small size -Location Index funding to compensate for the higher costs associated with isolation Substantial urban growth has meant that schools once identified as rural are now part of major city areas Current methods of allocation require review to improve targeting

16. 16

17. 17 Languages Other Than English (LOTE) Currently three different funding formulae in use Secondary Primary - $77.84 per student Former Stage 1 Schools of the Future still receive a special LOTE allocation. EnrolmentsEFT 1-4000.4 401-8000.6 801-12001.0 1201+1.5

18. 18 LOTE (Continued) Current allocations inequitable -large discrepancies in per student funding -maximum $1,187 per student -minimum $27 per student Current thinking is -to introduce a fairer more equitable model -allocations to be transparent -to shift LOTE to student per capita (CORE) in 2006

19. 19 LOTE (Continued) Current thinking All schools funded on tapered base plus per student funding Different per student rates for primary and secondary commensurate with stages of learning relativities Modelled separately for 2005

20. 20 Development of Equity Funding Aspects of the New Model

21. 21 Equity Funding Additional funding needed to compensate for factors that affect a student’s capacity to learn. Equity funding is presently targeted via the following categories : -Special Learning Needs -English as a Second Language  Research was undertaken to establish: -the best measure(s) for allocating these scarce resources; -how the concentration of disadvantage relates to school performance

22. 22 Equity Funding – Current SLN Funding Current SLN (Special Learning Needs) funding of $33m is targeted using six measures of disadvantage − Family occupation − Family status − EMA − Koorie − Mobility − Language background It is distributed across about 68% of schools.

23. 23 Incidence and Distribution of Student Need

24. 24 Uneven Distribution of Student Needs – Across Regions 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 ESLEMA Family occupation Disabilities

25. 25 Multiple Categories of Need Some schools deal with multiple categories of disadvantage, compounding the difficulties these schools face A Western Region school has a student population with − 19% Mobile − 64% EMA − 2.3% Indigenous − 13% D&I − 45% ESL

26. 26 Secondary School Effectiveness, by SES

27. 27 Primary School Effectiveness, by SES

28. 28 Variance in Year 5 achievement explained by current SLN funding components

29. 29 Correlations between Effectiveness Measures and Equity Density

30. 30 Models of Year 5 achievement

31. 31 Equity Funding - Summary Current equity funding ineffective because: SLN Index does not properly measure need Funds are spread too thinly Funds are insufficient to redress disadvantage Research findings Best predictor of educational outcomes is family occupation Government targets cannot be achieved without disadvantage being addressed

32. 32 Equity Funding - Summary Recommendations: SLN Index replaced by single measure of family socio-economic status (based on family occupation) SLN Funding to be better targeted to the most disadvantaged schools

33. 33 Koorie Students Koorie students are concentrated in limited number of schools. Funding is broadly dispersed to 692 schools. Not effectively targeted through the SLN Index

34. 34 Koorie Students - Current Thinking Separate from SLN No change in funding level Target at 10%+ density or threshold number of students Distribute on per student basis Minimum allocation NB : Subject to current review of Koorie education

35. 35 Student Mobility Funding broadly dispersed to 970 schools Mobile students are concentrated in specific schools Mobility is not always enduring Not effectively targeted through the SLN Index

36. 36 Student Mobility - Current Thinking Separate from SLN No change in funding level Target at 10%+ density Threshold to be sustained over past 3 years on a rolling basis Distribution on late enrolment per capita. Minimum allocation

37. 37 current English language proficiency assessment evidence of an annual instructional plan and a specialist teacher a schedule detailing support to be provided and documentation of progress Manitoba $725 for upto 3 years British Columbia $1,100 for upto 5 years NB : Same amount to both primary and secondary students ESL funding in Canada Set requirements

38. 38 Florida: $1000 (.265 loading) for each ESL student (about $1,000) Maryland: $1350 for each student for a maximum of two years New Jersey:$1,102 for each identified student New York: Based on a loading of.199 (about $776 in 2000) Texas: Loading of.1 (about $300 in 1998) ESL funding in the US

39. 39 ESL - Funding in Victoria A student who either was born in a non-English speaking country or has one or both parents born in a non-English speaking country is eligible for funding Current funding weights

40. 40 All students are treated the same, irrespective of proficiency levels. How much do students vary? ESL - Targeting need

41. 41 ESL -Targeting need How are students distributed across Victorian secondary schools? Poverty density (quintile) Languages Low Lower middle Middle Upper middle High Total Percentages within EMA band (column) Chinese 42.7 22.2 14.7 8.2 7.4 19.3 Dravidian/Indian 10.9 12.8 8.0 9.8 3.5 8.7 Eastern European 10.7 15.8 14.6 11.6 9.8 12.1 Middle Eastern 8.1 9.0 14.7 14.2 22.8 14.2 Northern European 6.5 8.0 3.8 4.6 2.2 4.9 South East Asian 5.4 8.9 13.1 16.6 18.4 12.6 East Asian 4.5 3.2 1.3 2.1 0.7 2.4 Turkish/Central Asian 4.3 6.8 7.7 12.8 9.3 8.2 Oceanic 3.2 6.2 8.0 8.7 9.9 7.2 Southern European 2.2 3.4 4.1 5.6 2.2 3.3 African 1.0 3.2 10.2 5.7 13.8 6.9

42. 42 ESL – Current Thinking Reduce the number of classifications from 7 to five Target need by aligning funding with school SFO density Reduce the disparity between primary/secondary funding weightings Provide support for five rather than seven years