Resourcing The National Goals For Schooling

Document Sample
Resourcing The National Goals For Schooling Powered By Docstoc
					Resourcing
The National Goals
For Schooling

Stage 2 Report
Prepared by the Schools Resourcing Taskforce Secretariat for the
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth
Affairs (MCEETYA)




                                                                   MAY 2005
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                Acronyms




                                                 Acronyms

 ABS              Australian Bureau of Statistics
 ABSCQ            Australian Bureau of Statistics Classification of Qualifications
 ACT              Australian Capital Territory
 ADSL             Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line
 AEA              Aboriginal Education Assistant

 AGSRC            Average Government School Recurrent Cost
 ANR              Australian National Report (on Schooling)
 ANTA             Australian National Training Authority
 AQF              Australian Qualifications Framework
 AQTF             Australian Quality Training Framework
 ARN              Additional Resourcing Need
 ASP              Application Service Provider
 BELTS            Basic e-Learning Tool Set
 BPI              Best Practice Initiative
 BST              Basic Skills Test
 CAP              Country Areas Program
 CECV             Catholic Education Commission of Victoria
 CECWA            Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia
 CLaSS            Children’s Literacy Success Strategy
 CRV              Coefficient of Relative Variation
 CSE              Center for the Study of Evaluation
 DEET             Department of Education, Employment and Training
 DEST             Department of Education, Science and Technology
 DET              Department of Education and Training
 DSL              Digital Subscriber Line
 EdNA             Education Network Australia
 ELC              Existing Least Cost
 ELI              Early Learning Initiative
 ELLA             English Language and Literacy Assessment
 FTE              Full-Time Equivalent
 GDP              Gross Domestic Product
 HF               High Frequency
 HSC              Higher School Certificate




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                               Final May 05 Page ii
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                   Acronyms

 ICT              Information and Communication Technology
 ICTS             Information and Communications Technologies in Schools (Taskforce)
 IEC              Intensive English Centre
 IESIP            Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Programme
 ILSS             Indigenous Language Speaking Student
 IP               Internet Protocol
 ISDN             Integrated Services Digital Network
 ISP              Internet service provider
 IT&Titab         Information Technology and Telecommunications Industry Training Advisory Board
 ITAB             Industry Training Advisory Board
 K-12             Kindergarten to Year 12
 KPM              Key Performance Measure
 LA               Learning Area
 LAECG            Local Aboriginal Education Consultative Group
 LAN              Local Area Network
 LBOTE            Language Background Other Than English
 LUAC             Language for Understanding Across the Curriculum
 MCD              Marginal Cost Driver
 MCEETYA          Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
 M-LATS           Mathematics - Learning and Teaching for Success
 NCVER            National Centre for Vocational Education Research (Ltd)
 NEET             North East Eduction and Training
 NEPMT            National Education Performance Monitoring Taskforce
 NIELNS           National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy
 NSRS             National School Resourcing Standard
 NSSC             National Schools Statistics Collection
 NSW              New South Wales
 NT               Northern Territory
 OECD             Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
 OECD             Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
 Ofsted           Office for Standards in Education
 PD               Professional Development
 PISA             Programme for International Student Assessment
 PMRT             Performance Measurement and Reporting Taskforce
 PSFP             Priority Schools Funding Program
 QLD              Queensland
 RNG              Resourcing the National Goals




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                  Final May 05 Page iii
Resourcing The National Goals                                                        Acronyms

 RTO              Registered Training Organisation
 SA               South Australia
 SES              Socio-economic Status
 SINE             Success in Numeracy Education
 SRT              Schools Resourcing Taskforce
 SS               Senior Secondary
 TAFE             Technical and Further Education
 TAS              Tasmania
 TQELT            Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership Taskforce
 UAI              Universities Admission Index
 VAEAI            Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Incorporation
 VET              Vocational Education and Training
 VIC              Victoria
 VLAN             Virtual Local Area Network
 VPN              Virtual Private Network
 WA               Western Australia
 WAN              Wide Area Network
 xDSL             Digital Subscriber Line (variants of)




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                       Final May 05 Page iv
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                                                    Table of Contents


                                                                   Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1                  REPORT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 1
  1.1         REPORT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 1
  1.2         ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................................... 1
  1.3         BASE COST OF SCHOOLING ....................................................................................................................................... 2
  1.4         STUDENT RELATED - FUTURE ADDITIONAL RESOURCING NEED (ARN)............................................................... 2
  1.5         SCHOOL RELATED – ARN ........................................................................................................................................ 3
  1.6         VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (VET) – FUTURE ARN........................................................................ 4
  1.7         INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES (ICT) - FUTURE ARN.................................................... 5
  1.8         THE NATIONAL SCHOOL RESOURCING STANDARD – A NATIONAL INTEGRATED APPROACH TO SCHOOL
               RESOURCING ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER 2                  THE BASE COST OF SCHOOLING .................................................................................................. 9
  PROJECT AIMS .......................................................................................................................................................................10
  2.1    ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................................10
  2.2    STAGE 1 – ANALYTICAL A PPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................11
  2.3    BASE COST - THE FIRST TIER OF ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................15
  2.4    CALCULATING BASE COST - METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................15
  2.5    DETAILED D ESCRIPTION OF STAGE 1 METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................16
  2.6    BASE COST OF SCHOOLING - RESULTS ...................................................................................................................19
  2.7    EFFICIENCY RANGE .................................................................................................................................................23
CHAPTER 3                  FUTURE ADDITIONAL RESOURCING NEED: STUDENT RELATED.................................35
  3.1         INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................36
  3.2         STUDENT RELATED NEEDS – AN IMPERATIVE TO ACT ..........................................................................................36
  3.3         FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................................48
CHAPTER 4                  SCHOOL RELATED RESOURCING NEED: CURRENT FUNDING......................................58
  4.1         INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................58
  4.2         METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................................59
  4.3         PROFILE OF SCHOOLS, BY LOCATION AND SIZE .....................................................................................................59
  4.4         DIRECT COST FACTORS (LOCATION RELATED) .....................................................................................................62
  4.5         DIRECT NON-STAFF COSTS ......................................................................................................................................63
  4.6         SPECIAL PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................................63
  4.7         DISTANCE EDUCATION ...........................................................................................................................................63
  4.8         INDIRECT COST FACTORS (SCHOOL SIZE RELATED) ..............................................................................................64
  4.9         TOTAL COST OF SCHOOL RELATED FACTORS (DIRECT AND INDIRECT) ................................................................65
CHAPTER 5                  ADDITIONAL RESOURCING NEED: VET IN SCHOOLS ........................................................67
  5.1         INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................68
  5.2         BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................68
  5.3         TOTAL COST AND COST D IFFERENTIALS ...............................................................................................................68
  5.4         DETAILED FINDINGS - (I) IDENTIFICATION OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AND TOTAL COSTS OF VET IN SCHOOLS .....70
  5.5         DETAILED FINDINGS - (II) I MPACT OF FUTURE VET IN SCHOOL ENROLMENT TRENDS ON DELIVERY COST ......73
  5.6         DETAILED FINDINGS - (III) O BTAINING CONSISTENT QUALITY IN VET IN SCHOOLS DELIVERY .........................84
  5.7         DETAILED FINDINGS - (IV) INCREASING QUALITY OF DELIVERY IN VET IN SCHOOLS ........................................91
CHAPTER 6                  ADDITIONAL RESOURCING NEED: ICT IN SCHOOLS ........................................................94
  6.1         INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................95
  6.2         PRIORITY AREA – CONNECTIVITY..........................................................................................................................99
  6.3         PRIORITY AREA - CONTENT..................................................................................................................................106
  6.4         PRIORITY AREA - PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................109
  6.5         SCHOOL RELATED FACTORS.................................................................................................................................112
  6.6         OVERVIEW OF FUTURE ICT REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................116
  6.7         FUTURE COST ESTIMATES ....................................................................................................................................118
CHAPTER 7                  THE NATIONAL SCHOOL RESOURCING STANDARD (NSRS) – A NATIONAL
                           INTEGRATED APPROACH TO SCHOOL RESOURCING .....................................................124



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                                                      Final May 05 Page v
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents


  7.1      RATIONALE ............................................................................................................................................................124
  7.2      THE NSRS COST FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................124
  7.3      NSRS HEADLINE COSTS.......................................................................................................................................126
  7.4      KEY FEATURES OF THE NSRS ..............................................................................................................................127
  7.5      NSRS - INDICATIVE COST ESTIMATES ................................................................................................................128
APPENDICES              .................................................................................................................................................................132




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                                                      Final May 05 Page vi
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                                      List of Tables


                                                                  List of Tables

   Table 1.1: Indicative additional required expenditure for future ARN (2003 prices, Government students) ................ 3
   Table 1.2: Unit cost summary of future ARN by intervention focus (2003 prices, Government students) ................... 3
   Table 1.3: Total cost of school related factors, government schools, Australia, 2001 prices.......................................... 3
   Table 1.4: Total costs of delivering VET in Schools for 2001 .......................................................................................... 4
   Table 1.5: Additional resources required for achievement of the National Goals (no inflation adjustment) ................. 6
   Table 1.6: Projected additional expenditure required to meet NSRS, government schools* .......................................... 6
   Table 1.7: Current and future additional expenditure required by ARN type* ................................................................ 7
   Table 1.8: Indicative total cost of NSRS, gov’t schools (adjusted annual recurrent costs, 2003 prices)........................ 8
   Table 2.1: ELC Schools, by State and Level ....................................................................................................................20
   Table 2.2:Public recurrent unit costs – per student...........................................................................................................21
   Table 2.3:Recurrent unit costs (public sources and school generated revenues) – per student .....................................22
   Table 2.4: Base cost as a proportion of average government expenditure, per capita (%) ............................................22
   Table 2.5:ELC Schools - Coefficient of Relative Variation (CRV) - Recurrent Cost per Student ...............................23
   Table 2.6:Full-Time Student/Staff Ratios (2001) .............................................................................................................24
   Table 2.7:Budget Categories and Cost Line Items ...........................................................................................................26
   Table 2.8:Primary Schools Per Student Expenditure ($) by Budget Category (2001)..................................................27
   Table 2.9:Secondary Schools - Per Student Expenditure ($) by Budget Category (2001) ............................................27
   Table 2.10: Average Recurrent Cost of Teachers, per Student*......................................................................................28
   Table 2.11:Cost of Teachers as Proportion of School Level Recurrent Costs*..............................................................29
   Table 2.12:Teacher Costs as % of Total School Level Salary Related Expenses ..........................................................29
   Table 2.13:ELC Teacher Salaries and National Award Salary Range for Teachers (2001)..........................................30
   Table 2.14:Administration and Support Related Salaries per Student (2001)................................................................30
   Table 2.15:Average Recurrent Unit Cost of Operating Expenses, per Student..............................................................31
   Table 2.16:Average Recurrent Unit Cost of Grants and Subsidies, per Student ............................................................31
   Table 2.17:Expenditure (%) by resource inputs: ELC primary schools and Govt. primary school average ................32
   Table 2.18: Expenditure (%) by Resource Inputs: ELC Secondary Schools & Govt. Sec. School Average ...............32
   Table 2.19:ELC school generated revenues, (Bank held savings, $ per student)...........................................................34
   Table 3.1: Indicative additional required expenditure for Student Related future ARN (Gov’t students) ...................35
   Table 3.2: Cost summary of future ARN by intervention focus......................................................................................35
   Table 3.3: Cost-benefit analysis of Year 12 education for one cohort ($m) ...................................................................40
   Table 3.4: Additional programs included in the comparative analysis ...........................................................................45
   Table 3.5: Cost characteristics of additional programs ....................................................................................................46
   Table 3.6: Comparison of average cost per student for additional programs and main analysis ..................................46
   Table 3.7: Effect of adding additional programs to the analysis .....................................................................................46
   Table 3.8: Difference in cost of future ARN using median or mean of program costs..................................................47
   Table 3.9: Indicative Mean National Resource Needs (Government Students) .............................................................47
   Table 3.10: Student Related future ARN costs by focus of intervention ........................................................................48
   Table 3.11: Range of estimates for primary students ‘at risk’ .........................................................................................49
   Table 3.12: Percentage of students achieving the numeracy benchmark, by gender, yrs 3 and 5, Australia, 2000.....49
   Table 3.13: Percentage of students achieving the reading benchmark, Australia, years 3 and 5, 1999, 2000 .............50



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                                  Final May 05 Page vii
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                                           List of Tables


   Table 3.14: Percentage of Indigenous students achieving the reading benchmark, Aust., yrs 3 and 5, 1999 & 2000.50
   Table 3.15: Education and labour market status of teenagers aged 15 to 19 years old, Australia, 2001 ......................52
   Table 3.16: Estimated Year 12 completion rates (%).......................................................................................................53
   Table 3.17: Estimated Year 12 completion rates (%).......................................................................................................53
   Table 3.18: Educational attainment, by age group and level of qualification, Australia, 1997–2000 (per cent) ........54
   Table 3.19: Range of estimates for secondary students ‘at risk’ .....................................................................................54
   Table 3.20: Range of indicative resource needs (Government school students) ............................................................54
   Table 3.21: Apparent Retention Rates - Government and Non-Government Schools...................................................55
   Table 3.22: Proportion of total costs by Key Resource Inputs (%) .................................................................................56
   Table 4.1: Total Cost of School Related Factors, Government Schools, 2001 ..............................................................58
   Table 4.2: Direct Costs for Non-metropolitan Areas, 2001 .............................................................................................62
   Table 4.3: Full-time Student/ Teaching Staff Ratios, 2001 .............................................................................................64
   Table 4.4: Total Indirect Subsidy, Government Schools, 2001.......................................................................................65
   Table 4.5: Total Cost of School Related Factors, Government Schools, 2001 ..............................................................65
   Table 4.6: Significance of Additional Resources for School Related Factors................................................................66
   Table 4.7: Breakdown of Additional Resourcing for School Related Factors, per capita, 2001...................................66
   Table 5.1: Total costs of delivering VET in Schools for 2001 ........................................................................................67
   Table 5.2: Calculation of the senior secondary Base cost per student hour....................................................................71
   Table 5.3: Cost differential between senior secondary Base cost psh and VET in Schools psh ...................................71
   Table 5.4: Differential direct school cost of delivering VET in schools for 2001 .........................................................72
   Table 5.5: Total direct and indirect cost of delivering VET in Schools for 2001 ..........................................................72
   Table 5.6: Variables used in Scenario 1 ............................................................................................................................75
   Table 5.7: Estimated direct delivery cost of VET in Schools - Scenario 1, 2001 .........................................................76
   Table 5.8: Variables used in Scenario 2 ............................................................................................................................77
   Table 5.9: Estimated direct delivery costs of VET in Schools - Scenario 2 ...................................................................78
   Table 5.10: Average hours per student per year - 2002 ...................................................................................................80
   Table 5.11: Variables used in Scenario 3 ..........................................................................................................................81
   Table 5.12: Estimated direct delivery cost of VET in Schools - Scenario 3...................................................................81
   Table 5.13: Participation in different certificate levels of VET in Schools courses.......................................................82
   Table 5.14: Student participation by certificate level in VET in Schools courses .........................................................83
   Table 5.15: Estimated direct delivery cost of VET in Schools - Scenario 4...................................................................83
   Table 5.16: Additional factors which influence quality in VET in Schools ...................................................................87
   Table 5.17: additional cost factors incurred to delivery of VET in Schools in rural and regional locations................89
   Table 5.18: Required Increase in resources to achieve consistent quality in VET in Schools ......................................89
   Table 5.19: Direct cost of achieving consistent quality in delivery in VET in Schools - Metropolitan schools..........90
   Table 5.20: Direct cost of achieving consistent quality in delivery in VET in Schools - Rural & Regional schools..90
   Table 5.21: Direct cost differential between senior secondary Base cost psh and VET in Schools psh to achieve
               consistent high quality delivery.....................................................................................................................91
   Table 5.22: Comparison of the school level resources to achieve current quality and consistent high quality delivery
               of VET in Schools, 2001 and 2010 ...............................................................................................................91
   Table 5.23: Required increase in resources to achieve a 5 per cent improvement in quality in VET in Schools ........92
   Table 5.24: Direct cost of increasing quality in delivery in VET in Schools - Metropolitan schools ..........................92




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                                      Final May 05 Page viii
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                                     List of Tables


   Table 5.25: Direct cost of increasing quality in delivery in VET in Schools - Rural and Regional schools................93
   Table 5.26: Comparison of the school level resources to achieve current quality and a 5 per cent increase in quality
               delivery of VET in Schools, 2001 and 2010 ................................................................................................93
   Table 6.1: Additional resources required for achievement of the National Goals ........................................................94
   Table 6.2: Connectivity - National expenditure annual breakdown ($m)....................................................................100
   Table 6.3: Average national cost of Content..................................................................................................................108
   Table 6.4: Expenditure for Professional Development for 2003 ($m).........................................................................111
   Table 6.5: Independent estimate of future costs ($m), by Priority Area .......................................................................118
   Table 6.6: Additional resources for achievement of the National Goals (no adjustment for inflation ......................119
   Table 6.7 Future costs - projected from 2003, by Priority Area ($m)..........................................................................120
   Table 6.8: Details of predicted national expenditure based on jurisdiction estimates ($m) .......................................121
   Table 6.9: Areas requiring additional resources, by Priority Area ...............................................................................122
   Table 6.10: Independent estimate of future ICT costs ($m) .........................................................................................122
   Table 6.11: Additional resources (rver 2003 levels) required to enable achievement of the National Goals ...........123
   Table 6.12: Additional resources required for Priority Areas.......................................................................................123
   Table 7.1: Additional expenditure required to meet NSRS, government schools*......................................................129
   Table 7.2: Current and future additional expenditure required by ARN type* ............................................................129
   Table 7.3: Indicative total cost of NSRS*, government schools (adjusted annual recurrent costs, 2003 prices).......130
   Table 7.4 Base Cost as proportion of aggregate cost, government schooling *(%) .....................................................130




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                                  Final May 05 Page ix
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                                        List of Figures



                                                               List of Figures

             Figure 1.1: Estimated national ICT expenditure ($ million, no inflation adjustment) ........................ 5
             Figure 2.2: ELC Selection Methodology ............................................................................................ 17
             Figure 2.3: Primary/Secondary Schools - Per Student Expenditure ($) by Budget Category
                        (2001) ................................................................................................................................. 28
             Figure 2.4: Expenditure (%) by resource inputs: ELC primary/secondary schools and Govt.
                        primary/secondary school average .................................................................................. 33
             Figure 3.1: Relationship between Mean and Spread ....................................................................... 39
             Figure 3.2: Resource Intensity Profile (RIP)...................................................................................... 43
             Figure 3.3: Percentage of year 3 students achieving the numeracy benchmark, by sub-group,
                        Australia, 2000 ................................................................................................................... 49
             Figure 3.4: Percentage of year 5 students achieving the numeracy benchmark, by sub-group,
                        Australia, 2000 ................................................................................................................... 50
             Figure 3.5: Percentage of year 3 students achieving the reading benchmark, by sub-group,
                        Australia, 2000 ................................................................................................................... 51
             Figure 3.6: Percentage of year 5 students achieving the reading benchmark, by sub-group,
                        Australia, 2000 ................................................................................................................... 51
             Figure 3.7: Full-time participation rates, Australia, May 2000.......................................................... 52
             Figure 3.8: Percentage of 19-year-olds who have completed year 12 or obtained any post-school
                        qualification, by gender, Australia, May 2000.................................................................. 53
             Figure 3.9: Percentage Distribution of Key Student Related future ARN Cost Inputs ................... 56
             Figure 3.10: Distribution of Student Related future ARN costs by focus of intervention ............... 57
             Figure 4.1: Proportion of Primary Schools by Size of School .......................................................... 60
             Figure 4.2: Proportion of Secondary Schools by Size of School ..................................................... 60
             Figure 4.3: Primary School Students by School Size, Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan, 2001 61
             Figure 4.4: Secondary School Students by School Size, Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan, 2001
                        ............................................................................................................................................ 61
             Figure 5.1: Compound growth of students enrolled in VET in Schools - 1996 to 2010 ................. 75
             Figure 5.2: Enrolment as percentage by ANTA Industry group - 2002 ........................................... 79
             Figure 5.3: Relative importance of factors influencing quality in VET in Schools .......................... 87
             Figure 5.4: Weighting of factors with the greatest influence on quality in VET in Schools ............ 88
             Figure 6.1: Estimated National ICT Expenditure ($m)...................................................................... 94
             Figure 6.2: Connectivity - National expenditure allocation for 2003 ($m) ...................................... 99
             Figure 6.3: Connectivity - National expenditure allocation for 2003 (%) ........................................ 99
             Figure 6.4: Connectivity - National expenditure annual breakdown ($m) .................................... 100
             Figure 6.5: Connectivity - National average cost per student ($) ................................................. 101
             Figure 6.6: ICT Infrastructure in Schools - National average cost per student............................ 101
             Figure 6.7: Wide Area Networks - National average cost per student ......................................... 102
             Figure 6.8: ICT Support in Schools - National average cost per student..................................... 102
             Figure 6.9: Centralised Infrastructure & Services - National average cost per student .............. 103
             Figure 6.10: Software - National average cost per student ($) ..................................................... 104
             Figure 6.11: Internet charges - National average cost per student .............................................. 104
             Figure 6.12: Content Development - National average cost per student ($) ............................... 107



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                                      Final May 05 Page x
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                               List of Figures


             Figure 6.13: ICT cost per student vs school size - Primary .......................................................... 113
             Figure 6.14: ICT cost per student vs school size - Primary school bands ................................... 113
             Figure 6.15: ICT cost per student vs school size - Secondary ..................................................... 114
             Figure 6.16: ICT cost per student - Secondary school bands....................................................... 114
             Figure 6.17: Total resources for ICT per school ($)....................................................................... 115
             Figure 6.18: Total resources for ICT per school (%) ..................................................................... 115
             Figure 6.19: Estimated national ICT expenditure ($m).................................................................. 118
             Figure 6.20: Future ICT costs projected from historical data ($m) ............................................... 119
             Figure 6.21: Predicted national expenditure based on jurisdiction estimates ($m)..................... 121
             Figure 6.22: Comparison of estimates of national ICT expenditure ($m) .................................... 123




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                              Final May 05 Page xi
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                     Report Summary




Chapter 1 Report Summary

1.1        Report Overview

           In July 2001, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
           (MCEETYA) established the Schools Resourcing Taskforce (SRT) to analyse and provide advice
           on school funding issues. MCEETYA 2001 also endorsed a significant national project Resourcing
           the National Goals (RNG) to form the major work of the Taskforce. The overall aim of the project
           is to advise Ministers on the future amount of resources required by the school sector to deliver
           even more effectively on the National Goals for Schooling. The RNG research has followed the
           adoption of MCEETYA in 2002 of a set of Principles for a National and Cooperative Approach to
           Funding Schools. The research and analysis of the SRT on the costs of schooling provides a
           tangible basis for understanding the possible implications of the Principles.

           The Australian systems of schooling have demonstrated their effectiveness in recent international
           assessment of actual student learning. The OECD has found that Australia ranked fourth out of all
           OECD countries in terms of mean literacy and numeracy outcomes for primary and secondary
           students - placing Australia ahead of other comparable countries such as the United Kingdom and
           the USA. This report identifies the future investments that are required so that Australian schooling
           can improve even further by addressing areas of specific student need and emerging costs. It
           examines the impact of important school, student and curriculum factors that drive these costs and
           the extent of their impact.

           The report concludes with an indicative costing for a specified level of attainment of the National
           Goals for Schooling. This is presented as the National School Resourcing Standard (NSRS). The
           NSRS is a cost framework for measuring the required recurrent costs of schooling against specified
           levels of achievement in learning as well as school participation outcomes that have been derived
           from the National Goals for Schooling. The cost estimates presented in this report are indicative of
           future resourcing requirements. Stage 3 of the RNG project is scheduled to commence in 2005.
           This stage will consider other significant areas of additional resourcing need (e.g. students with
           disabilities) as well as the potential efficiency gains that might be derived by systems from
           additional investments. A later report will present these findings and integrate with the Stage 1 and
           2 results presented in this report.

1.2        Analytical Framework

           The analytical framework integrates two types of cost analyses. A ‘Base cost’ analysis was
           undertaken during Stage 1 of the project. The Base cost is a theoretical estimate of the efficiency
           frontier for schooling as measured by existing least cost for primary and secondary schools. Base
           cost analysis reveals the extent of current efficiencies attained by schools (and hence school
           systems) that are demonstrating effectiveness against specified student performance data. It also
           reveals the nature and location of resource need in schooling if the National Goals for Schooling
           are to be a realistic objective for all schools and students.

           The Base cost estimate of schooling represents the actual average per capita recurrent costs of a set
           of government schools that (i) have students meeting a set of specified participation and learning
           benchmarks, and (ii) draw a least amount of funding because of their profile.

           The second tier of analysis considers the future Additional Resourcing Need (future ARN) of
           schools above the Base cost estimates. The future ARN of schools is defined as the product of (i)
           non-discretionary factors – inherent attributes of the students or the school outside the control of
           school management that generate additional resourcing requirements above the Base cost, and (ii)
           those additional resource demands generated by an expanded curriculum. The future ARN analysis



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                        Final May 05 Page 1
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                     Report Summary


           has considered the specific cost impact on schooling of student factors, school factors and
           curriculum factors.

           The National School Resourcing Standard (NSRS) emerged as a cost framework integrating the
           results of both cost analyses. The macro-level cost estimates of the NSRS are expressed through
           three types of headline cost figures – national aggregate costs to attain the NSRS, additional
           expenditure required to attain the NSRS, and per student unit cost estimates of the NSRS. All cost
           estimates are indicative in nature and based on the calculations that are possible from this phase of
           the project.

1.3        Base Cost of Schooling

           The Base cost of schooling was examined in two ways. The Public Base Cost (PBC) is the publicly
           funded costs from all levels of government. The Total Base Cost (TBC) includes publicly funded
           resources and school generated revenues. The cost calculations do not include user cost of capital
           or transport costs.

1.3.1      Total Base Cost (TBC)
               • The Primary school TBC is $ 6,467 per student (in-school/out of school recurrent costs,
                   2003 prices) which is approximately 17% less per student than the government school
                   average
               • The Secondary school TBC is $ 9,130 per student (in-school/out of school recurrent costs,
                   2003 prices) which is approximately 10% less per student than the government school
                   average

1.3.2      Public Base Cost (PBC)
               • The Primary school PBC is $ 6,201 per student (in-school/out of school recurrent costs,
                   2003 prices) which is approximately $1,300 (18%) less per student than the government
                   school average
               • The Secondary school PBC is $ 8,504 per student (in-school/out of school recurrent costs,
                   2003 prices), which is approximately $1,300 (13%) less per student than the government
                   school average

1.3.3      Key issues and policy implications from these findings are:
               • Any simple per capita calculation of average cost of government schooling disguises a
                   diverse spread of per capita costs generated by different schools
               • Government schools operate effectively at significantly below average per capita funding
                   where school attributes (size and location) and student attributes have limited additional
                   resourcing needs.
               • Governments in Australia are (on aggregate) successfully managing to direct fewer
                   publicly funded resources to those government schools that have lower than average
                   resourcing needs.
               • This systemic tendency towards efficient resource allocation across government schools
                   does not mean that school resourcing is always perfectly matched to school needs
               • The calculation of Base cost does not address the additional resourcing needs of schools
               • Base cost schools were found to operate within a relatively narrow efficiency range. This
                   suggests the Base cost estimate is a robust figure.

1.4        Student Related - Future Additional Resourcing Need (ARN)

           The ‘Student Related future ARN’ refers to the additional resources required by schooling systems
           so they can meet the needs of students that are currently at risk of not attaining the National Goals
           for Schooling. The project examined in detail the needs of Indigenous students, low SES students



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                        Final May 05 Page 2
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                   Report Summary


           and students with ESL. It is estimated that the additional expenditure required to meet the future
           ARN of all government school students is in the vicinity of $2 billion per annum, 2003 prices.
           Teacher salary costs were the largest component of these additional costs.


           Table 1.1: Indicative additional required expenditure for future ARN (2003 prices, Government
                       students)
            Students               % of students at risk     Number of students     Average per student           Total
                                                                  at risk                  cost
            Primary                         12                   164,566            $5,905                  $971,762,230
            Secondary                       15                   162,186            $6,548                  $1,061,993,928
            Total                                                                                           $2,033,756,158


           Table 1.2: Unit cost summary of future ARN by intervention focus (2003 prices, Government
                      students)
             Students           School focused             Target Group           Individual focused      Average per student
                                  Initiatives               initiatives               initiatives                cost

            Primary       $247                       $1017                   $4,641                    $5,905
            Secondary     $265                       $979                    $5304                     $6,548


           Analysis was restricted to developing an estimate of the costs of assisting all students reach the
           currently reported benchmarks in literacy and numeracy for primary school students, and expanded
           educational participation for secondary students. National resource needs (student related) were
           calculated as the average cost of future Additional Resourcing Need (future ARN) per student
           multiplied by the number of students at risk of not achieving benchmarks.

           A Resource Intensity Profile (RIP) was used to group initiatives into four categories of intervention
           focus – universal, school, target group, and individual. This framework distinguishes the scale of
           resource intensity between universal/system wide approaches, through to intensive services for
           those most ‘at risk’. Separation of the initiatives by the focus of intervention allows examination of
           comparative cost structures that might otherwise be submerged by simple averaging across all
           programs.

           The number of students at risk of not reaching the benchmarks was derived from the Year 5
           Literacy and Numeracy Benchmarks for the primary school level, and from a measure of
           participation in education and training for the secondary level.

1.5        School Related – ARN

           School related ARN refers to the additional costs generated by the factors of school size (where
           that occurs in a rural area and is not a policy related variable) and school location. The currently
           funded provisions for school-related additional resourcing needs are estimated to be in the order of
           $590 million based on direct and indirect costs in Australian government schools in 2001. It is
           estimated that on average each non metropolitan primary student costs approximately $650 more to
           school than their metropolitan counterpart. The average additional cost for a non metropolitan
           secondary school student is approximately $870.




           Table 1.3: Total cost of school related factors, government schools, Australia, 2001 prices
                                                           Primary                  Secondary                    Total




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                      Final May 05 Page 3
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                         Report Summary


             Total direct costs             $76,321,975               $40,615,434              $116,937,410
             Total indirect costs           $245,573,857              $226,537,203             $472,111,060
             Total costs                    $321,895,832              $267,152,637             $589,048,470
             Total per capita               $648                      $870                     $733

           For this study, direct costs are defined as specific purpose financial allocations made by each
           school system and relate to the location of the school. Costs were organised into two categories:
               • Non-staff costs
               • Special programs

           Indirect costs relate to school size and consist of only one category, the increased costs of having
           lower student-teacher ratios in non metropolitan schools. This was measured by the proportionate
           difference between metropolitan and non metropolitan teacher salaries within each state on a per-
           student basis. This constitutes a real, additional cost to school systems from staffing non
           metropolitan schools, related to the smaller average size of non-metropolitan schools. Direct salary
           costs associated with location, such as locality allowances designed to attract teachers to non-
           metropolitan schools, were included in the indirect calculation to address the inability of some
           jurisdictions to disentangle these from salaries. This analysis does not provide an estimate of future
           costs – it offers a snap-shot of additional school-related costs in 2001.

1.6        Vocational Education and Training (VET) – Future ARN

           The study has produced an estimate of the total national cost to schools of delivering VET, which
           comprises a direct school cost (costs incurred at the school level) and an indirect school cost
           (associated administrative and organisational costs).

           An estimate was also produced for the total additional cost incurred by schools due to the delivery
           of VET in Schools based on (i) the number of students enrolled in VET in Schools, and (ii) the
           average number of VET in School hours per student in senior secondary school.

           The study has found the total national school costs of delivering VET in schools for 2001 was
           $250.6m

           The currently funded ARN cost to government school systems for providing VET in Schools
           nationally in 2001 was $74.3m (above Base cost).

           Table 1.4: Total costs of delivering VET in Schools for 2001
                             Factor                           Total                            Additional
            Direct school cost (psh)            $6.41                                $0.98
            Total Direct                        $208.1m                              $31.8m
            Indirect cost (psh)                 $1.31                                $1.31
            Total Indirect                      $42.5 m                              $42.5 m
            Total Costs                         $250.6 m                             $74.3 m

           The study modelled four possible scenarios for enrolment growth and likely impact on cost: (i)
           Base Case, (ii) increasing retention rate, (iii) increasing VET in School hours, and (iv) increased
           uptake of higher level certificates.

           The highest estimated cost of future ARN associated with anticipated future enrolment trends up to
           2010 was $97m (2001 prices).
           The study separately examined the likely cost impact of (i) obtaining consistent high quality across
           all programs and (ii) the additional cost of achieving a modest improvement in overall quality for
           VET in schools programs.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                            Final May 05 Page 4
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                        Report Summary


           The highest estimate for future ARN cost to obtain consistent high quality, modelled next to
           anticipated future enrolment trends up to 2010, was $109.5m.
           The highest estimate for future ARN cost to achieve a 5 per cent increase in quality, modelled next
           to anticipated future enrolment trends up to 2010, was $111.2m (2001 prices).
           Government school systems currently provide $74.3m to offer VET in Schools nationally (in
           addition to Base cost). $37m is thus the estimated unfunded portion of VET related future ARN in
           2001 prices, being the difference between projected enrolment growth and quality
           controls/improvements to the year 2010 ($111.2m) and currently funded provisions for 2001
           ($74.3m).

1.7        Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) - Future ARN

           Resource implications generated by rapidly changing ICT requirements were examined only as far
           as ICT relates to the costs of teaching and learning in schools. Costs of ICT in general
           administration at the central or school level were not included in the study. Both capital and
           recurrent costs were included. Current and future cost and resourcing requirements were studied for
           three main priority areas, (i) connectivity issues, (ii) online content, and (iii) professional
           development.

           Total Current ICT Costs
              • The total national expenditure by jurisdictions on ICT in schools for 2003 was $545m,
                  comprising Connectivity ($466m), Content ($28m) and Professional Development ($51m).
              • The per-student expenditure grew at an average annual rate of 17%.
              • The national per-student average ICT expenditure for 2003 was $241.
              • The national average ICT expenditure per FTE teacher for 2003 was $3,583.

           Future ICT Costs
           Future costs were estimated by the following three complementary methods, (i) on the basis of
           projections from historical costs, (ii) jurisdiction predictions based on known costs and needs were
           then compiled, and (iii) an independent estimate based on additional requirements to enable the
           achievement of the National Goals.

           The figure below shows the total amount and the estimated growth in ICT expenditure for the
           period 2003-2006.

           Figure 1.1: Estimated national ICT expenditure ($ million, no inflation adjustment)


              1,200

              1,000                                              871
                                                     772
                800                        650

                                545
                600

                400

                200

                  0
                          2003           2004      2005         2006




           The estimate of total additional required future resources by year 2006 is $326 million. This would
           increase the average annual recurrent expenditure per student on ICT from $241 to $385.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05 Page 5
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                     Report Summary


           Table 1.5: Additional resources required for achievement of the National Goals (no inflation
                      adjustment)
                                                                                          2003            2004            2005            2006
            Expenditure for achievement of National Goals ($million p.a.)                 545             650             738             871
            Additional Resourcing over 2003 level ($ million p.a.)                                        105             227             326
            Per-Student Average Resourcing ($ p.a.)                                        241            287             341             385
            Additional Per-Student Resourcing over 2003 level ($ p.a.)                                     46             100             144
            Increase on 2003 expenditure                                                                  19%             42%             60%


1.8        The National School Resourcing Standard – a national integrated approach to
           school resourcing

           The NSRS is a cost framework for determining the actual recurrent costs of schooling in order to
           meet specified learning objectives derived from the National Goals for Schooling adopted by all
           Ministers (MCEETYA, 1999). All cost estimates are future oriented in that they represent the
           investments that are currently foreseeable as necessary for achieving specified outcomes derived
           from the National Goals. The costs and calculations, and therefore the Standard, are dynamic.

           The NSRS can serve a number of purposes, including;
               • A national resourcing benchmark against which the total public funding of schools can be
                  measured.
               • A national framework for the development of macro-level funding policies for schools
                  irrespective of sector.
               • An analytical framework and information base for school systems to assist in their
                  internal allocation of funds across schools, levels of schooling and across sectors.
               • A rational basis for funding negotiations between the Commonwealth, the States and the
                  non-government sector.

           The total additional expenditure required to meet the NSRS is approximately $2.4 billion per
           annum in 2003 prices. This represents a 13% growth on estimated recurrent public expenditure
           (accrual basis, excluding user cost of capital, transport and payroll tax) on government schooling
           for 2003.

           Table 1.6: Projected additional expenditure required to meet NSRS, government schools*
                      School Level                  National Additional            Percentage Growth on             Additional Unit Cost Per
                                                     Required Expend.                existing recurrent                 FTE student($)
                                                  ($ million per annum)                    Public
                                                                                        Expenditure
             Primary level, Projected                       $ 1,160                         12%                                  835
             Additional Expenditure.
             Secondary level, Projected                     $ 1,213                           15%                               1385
             Additional Expenditure.
             Total Additional Expenditure.                  $ 2,373                           13%                               1048

         Adjusted annual recurrent costs, 2003 prices (in-school and out of school, accrual basis accounting). Excluding user costs of capital,
         transport, payroll tax.

           A breakdown of the additional expenditure required for future ARN by primary and secondary
           levels is presented in the table below. Estimates are also provided of current national public
           expenditure by ARN type. Total ARN recurrent expenditure for 2003 was estimated nationally at




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                       Final May 05 Page 6
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                                               Report Summary


            nearly $3 billion. Additional required expenditure for future ARN is estimated at nearly $2.4 billion
            per annum which is almost an 80% growth on 2003 national public expenditure allocations.1
            The greatest portion of additional required expenditure is for student related future ARN.
            Additional required public expenditure needs to grow by approximately $2 billion per annum. This
            is an approximate 90% increase on the estimated 2003 national allocations ($2.2 billion per
            annum).
            ICT and VET related expenses also need strong growth to meet NSRS levels (56% and 38%
            respectively) but these are coming off a much lower base of expenditure and do not pose as
            significant additional cost burdens.
            These estimates have been derived from the analysis of ARN expenditure in this report. The
            estimate of current student related expenditure has been obtained by deducting current school
            related, ICT related and VET related expenditure from total current expenditure. The future school
            related needs are not shown because no estimate has been produced of any outstanding needs.

            Table 1.7: Current and future additional expenditure required by ARN type*
                  Student related                 School related**                       ICT related                       VET related                              Total
Level of       Current        Additional        Current        Additional          Current         Additional         Current         Additional          Current        Additional
Education        ($ m)             ($ m)          ($ m)             ($ m)            ($ m)              ($ m)           ($ m)              ($ m)            ($ m)             ($ m)
Primary       1,150.6                 972       366.3                0           334.2           187.7                        0                  0      1851.1          1160
Secondary       539.7                1062       304.0                0           210.8           118.4                     84.5               32.3      1139.0          1213
Total         1,690.3                2034       670.3                0           545             306.1                     84.5               32.3      2990.1          2373

            Annual recurrent costs, 2003 prices (in-school and out of school, accrual basis accounting). Excluding user costs of capital and
            transport. Payroll tax incorporated in some elements of ICT and VET related.

            ** No provision made for future additional school related ARN expenditure (see discussion in report)


            The total cost of funding the NSRS is approximately $21.3 billion per annum in adjusted recurrent
            costs. This includes public expenditure and the continuation of estimated current levels of school
            generated revenues from non-public sources.

            The total NSRS is 116% of estimated actual recurrent expenditure for government schooling. This
            includes the school generated revenues and the required additional expenditure to provide for the
            NSRS. National public expenditure for government schooling would need to grow by 13% in real
            terms to meet the funding levels required by the NSRS.

            This phase of the project has not costed the needs of disabled students or investments required to
            improve teacher quality. Research into these costs will be undertaken during 2005/06 and will
            complete the final cost estimates of the project.




            1 Figures do not include a portion of expenditure for these categories that may have been included as part of the Base cost figures. This is most likely to apply to the
              student related ARN type. For example, schools that satisfied the Base criteria may have incorporated an element of expenditure for literacy or numeracy programs
              that enabled them to perform effectively.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                                                Final May 05 Page 7
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                   Report Summary




           Table 1.8: Indicative cost of NSRS, government schools (adjusted annual recurrent costs, 2003 prices)
         School Level/Cost Type                                   Actual               NSRS                 NSRS               As % of 2003
                                                                  Recurrent            Recurrent            Unit Cost Per      public exp.
                                                                  Expend. 2003         Cost                 FTE                For govt
                                                                  ($ m p.a.)*          ($ m p.a.)           student($)         schooling
         Primary Level
         Public Expenditure for Primary Schooling                 9,973                11,132               8,016              112%
         School generated revenues - Prim.Schooling**             347                  347                  250                3%
         Total Expenditure for Primary Schooling                  10,320               11,479               8,265              115%
         Secondary Level
         Public Expenditure for Secondary Schooling               8,294                9,507                10,859             115%
         School generated revenues – Sec. Schooling**             286                  286                  327                3%
         Total Expenditure for Secondary Schooling                8,580                9,793                11,186             118%
         Total
         Total Public Expenditure for Schooling                   18,267               20,639               9,115              113%
         Total school generated revenues for Schooling            633                  633                  280                3%
         Total Expenditure for Schooling                          18,900               21,273               9,395              116%
         Estimates based on published ANR data, with projected growth in expenditure using average AGSRC indexation for previous three years.
         Excluding - user costs of capital, transport, payroll tax.
         * Based on project estimates of national average for school generated resources at primary and secondary levels for school year 2003




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05 Page 8
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                              The Base Cost of Schooling




Chapter 2 The Base Cost of Schooling


                                The Base Cost of Schooling - Key Findings
  Key Concept – Base Costs of Schooling

        •   The average per capita recurrent costs of a set of government schools where they (i) are operating in middle-
            range SES communities, (ii) have a school and student profile that attracts very limited (if any) additional targeted
            resourcing from government, and (iii) have students meeting a set of specified participation and learning
            benchmarks.
        •   This existing least cost (ELC) data provide the base cost platform upon which estimates will be derived for
            developing cost projections for any school.
        •   The ELC does not represent the average cost of a typical school. It is a theoretical estimate of existing least cost
            for primary and secondary schools that provide the funding base upon which individual school needs can be built.
        •   The Base Cost has been compared to an adjusted average government cost of schooling – this excludes user
            cost of capital and transport costs but includes other accrual based expenditures. While the adjusted average
            cost of government schooling is close to the AGSRC, the exclusion of accrual costs by the AGSRC means it
            could not be used as the comparable average cost of government schooling.

  Total Base Cost of Schooling
        • ‘Total’ refers to expenditures on schooling that are financed from government sources and school generated
            revenues
        • Total Base cost for government primary schools is $ 6,467 per student (in-school/out of school recurrent costs,
            2003 prices)
        • Total Base cost of government primary schools is approximately $1,000 (17%) less per student than the
            government school average
        • Total Base cost for government secondary schools is $ 9,130 per student (in-school/out of school recurrent costs,
            2003 prices)
        • Total Base cost of government secondary schools is approximately $1,000 (10%) less per student than the
            government school average
        • Drawing on school generated revenues, Base cost primary schools had on average $251 per student in bank
            held savings, while Base cost secondary schools held on average, $590 per student.

  Public Base Cost of Schooling
        • ‘Public’ refers to expenditures on schooling that are government financed (State and Commonwealth sources)
        • Public Base cost for government primary schools is $ 6,201 per student (in-school/out of school recurrent costs,
            2003 prices)
        • Public Base cost of government primary schools is approximately $1,300 (17%) less per student than the
            government school average
        • Public Base cost for government secondary schools is $8,504 per student (in-school/out of school recurrent
            costs, 2003 prices)
        • Public Base cost of government secondary schools is approximately $1,300 (13%) less per student than the
            government school average

  Policy Implications
        • Any simple per capita calculation of average cost of government schooling disguises a diverse spread of per
             capita costs generated by different schools
        • Government schools operate effectively at significantly below average per capita funding where school attributes
             (size and location) and student attributes have limited additional resourcing needs.
        • Governments in Australia are (on aggregate) successfully managing to direct fewer publicly funded resources to
             those government schools that have lower than average resourcing needs.
        • This systemic tendency towards efficient resource allocation across government schools does not mean that
             school resourcing is always perfectly matched to school needs
        • The calculation of base cost does not address the additional resourcing needs of schools
        • Base cost schools were found to operate within a relatively narrow efficiency range. This suggests the Base cost
             estimate is a robust figure




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                           Final May 05 Page 9
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                            The Base Cost of Schooling




Project Aims

           In July 2001, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
           (MCEETYA) established the Schools Resourcing Taskforce (SRT) to analyse and provide advice
           on school funding issues. MCEETYA 2001 also endorsed a significant national project Resourcing
           the National Goals (RNG) to form the major work of the Taskforce. This project aimed to advise
           on the appropriate level of public funding for different schools and systems to achieve the National
           Goals for Schooling.
           The Taskforce was thus given the task of quantifying the resource implications of adopting the
           National Goals as a national target. A national level emphasis on promoting educational
           effectiveness against national benchmarks, and the adequacy of funding to achieve this
           effectiveness, has shaped the following aims of the project.


                                                               Project Aims
                         •      To identify the costs of schooling in a way that can measure and compare existing
                                expenditure patterns with cost estimates for efficient and equitable delivery of high
                                quality learning outcomes for all children.
                         •      To identify specific school, student and any other factors that drive costs and the extent
                                of their impact.




           A two-tiered cost analysis was developed to achieve these aims. Stage 1 fulfils the first aim by
           producing a calculation of the ‘Existing Least Cost’ (ELC) for a school to be effective. Stage 2
           fulfils the second aim by identifying the marginal cost drivers that impose resource demands above
           the ELC scenario. The calculations developed by stages 1 and 2 may then be combined to generate
           cost profiles for schools operating under very different social and institutional circumstances and
           with varied pedagogical orientations.

2.1        Analytical Framework

           A two-tiered cost analysis has been developed to quantify the resourcing needs of schools.
           The first tier is a base cost estimate for schooling, the Existing Least Cost (ELC) of schooling. The
           ELC is the average per capita recurrent costs of a set of government schools where they (i) are
           operating in middle-range SES communities, (ii) have a school and student profile that attracts very
           limited (if any) additional targeted resourcing from government, and (iii) have students meeting a
           set of specified participation and learning benchmarks. It is a theoretical estimate of existing least
           cost for primary and secondary schools (two separate estimates have been produced).
           The second tier of analysis considers the impact of additional resourcing needs above the base.
           These additional needs are (i) non-discretionary factors – inherent attributes of the students or the
           school outside the control of school management that generate additional resourcing requirements
           above the base, and (ii) those additional resource demands generated by an expanded curriculum
           bandwidth.
           This chapter describes the SRT’s investigation into Stage 1 of the project, the Base costs of
           schooling.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                        Final May 05 Page 10
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                           The Base Cost of Schooling




                                                           Key Concepts
            Stage One – Base Costs of Schooling

                  •   The average per capita recurrent costs of a set of government schools where they (i) are operating in
                      middle-range SES communities, (ii) have a school and student profile that attracts very limited (if any)
                      additional targeted resourcing from government, and (iii) have students meeting a set of specified
                      participation and learning benchmarks.
                  •   This existing least cost (ELC) data provide the base cost platform upon which estimates will be derived
                      for developing cost projections for any school.
                  •   The ELC does not represent the average cost of a typical school. It is a theoretical estimate of existing
                      least cost for primary and secondary schools that provide the funding base upon which individual
                      school needs can be built.

            Stage Two – Additional Resourcing Needs

                  •   Those factors generating additional resourcing needs for schools above and beyond the base cost of
                      schooling.
                  •   Three types of additional needs have been identified by the project:
                      − student related (e.g. low SES, ESL related, indigenous background)
                      − school related (e.g. school size and location)
                      − curriculum (e.g. ICT and VET in schools)




2.2        Stage 1 – Analytical Approach and Methodology

2.2.1      Analytical Framework
           The analytical approach and methodology for Stage 1 of the project was developed by the SRT
           secretariat and endorsed by the Steering Committee in the second half of 2002. The SRT Project
           Reference Group, a collection of technical experts from government and non-government sectors,
           applied analytic pressure to the approach in December 2002.
           In the early part of 2003, the methodology was presented to key stakeholders, including national
           organisations such as the Australian Education Union, the Independent Education Union, the
           Australian Primary Principals’ Association, the Australian Secondary Principals’ Association, the
           Australian Council of State School Organisations, the Australian Parents Council, the Council of
           Catholic School Parents, and the National Council of Independent Schools Association.
           Adjustments were made in the light of their feedback.
           The agreed methodology maintained a consistent approach to data collection but responded to the
           idiosyncrasies of jurisdictions. Project design accommodated the need for a detailed analysis of
           costs while being mindful of the various jurisdictional and sectoral concerns associated with
           financial and performance data. The project collected data only from government schools for Stage
           1, with analysis kept to an aggregated national level and no state level breakdowns. (Non-
           government schools were invited to participate and their involvement occurred during Stage 2.)

           Resources and Outcomes
           At a macro-level of analysis the calculation of the ‘average cost of schooling’ (usually expressed as
           a standardised ‘recurrent cost per student’) is important for budgetary purposes and broad planning.
           It does however conceal the diversity of resourcing needs within the schooling sector. The starting
           point for the analytical approach of Stage 1 was that the resourcing needs of students (and hence
           schools) do vary significantly if these resourcing needs are defined with reference to the attainment
           of specified educational outcomes for each student. There is a considerable volume of research that
           has examined the additional educational needs of certain groups of students and the resultant



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                       Final May 05 Page 11
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                       The Base Cost of Schooling


            resource demands generated for schooling systems.2 Schools also can have certain inherent non-
            negotiable characteristics (such as location and sometimes size) that impose additional costs via
            restrictions on their operational efficiency, and these latter variations are considered in Part 2 of
            this report.

            Measuring Effectiveness
            The resourcing needs of schooling can only be properly understood when they are considered in
            relation to the expected outcomes. The Adelaide Declaration on the National Goals for Schooling
            in the Twenty-First Century (National Goals) provides the overarching national policy framework
            for schooling in Australia. These National Goals are ambitious in scope, as is appropriate for
            Australia’s aspirations for schools and students.
            This statement of national goals for schooling acknowledges the capacity of all young people to
            learn, and the role of schooling in developing that capacity. It also acknowledges the role of parents
            as the first educators of their children and the central role of teachers in the learning process.
            In summary, the agreed goals are listed below (the National Goals are listed in full in the
            appendices).


                                                     National Goals for Schooling

                    1.    Schooling should develop fully the talents and capacities of all students.

                    2.    In terms of curriculum, students should have attained high standards of knowledge, skills and
                          understanding through a comprehensive and balanced curriculum in the compulsory years of
                          schooling encompassing the agreed eight key learning areas; attained the skills of numeracy and
                          English literacy; participated in programs of vocational learning and participated in programs and
                          activities which foster and develop enterprise skills.

                    3.    Schooling should be socially just.




            The key task of this project was to define the resourcing needs of schools so they can deliver the
            specified National Goals. Central to this endeavour is measuring the performance of schools
            against these National Goals. In Australia as in other countries there has been considerable work
            undertaken to measure and benchmark student performance. This is the starting point for
            measuring school performance.
            The extent of nationally comparable performance measures as they currently exist in Australian
            schools is indicated in the following table:3




2
  Ross,K & Levacic, R.(1999) Needs based resource allocation in education, UNESCO, Hedges, L. (1995) Money Does Matter – a research synthesis
of a new universe of education production function studies, in Picus, L. & Wattenburger, J. (1995) Where does the money go, Resource allocation in
elementary and secondary schools, Corwin Press
3
  Productivity Commission (2003), Report on Government Services 2003, Vol 1, figure 3.6, p.3.17



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                   Final May 05 Page 12
Resourcing The National Goals                                                             The Base Cost of Schooling



                   Figure 2.1: Status of national performance indicators
                                                                           Performance indicators for
                                                                           Goal 2

                                                                           Literacy


                                                                           Numeracy


                                                                           VET in Schools
             Educational                 Achievement of the
             effectiveness               national goals of                 Science
                                         schooling
                                                                           Information Technology

                                                                           Participation, retention,
                                                                           completion and destination

                                                                           Civics and Citizenship

                                                                           Enterprise Education

                                                                           Other Social Outcomes

                                                                           Other areas to be identified



        Key to indicators
        Text     Provided on a nationally comparable basis
        Text     Information not complete or not strictly comparable
        Text     Yet to be collected.



           These performance indicators are focused on student outcomes related primarily to National Goal
           number 2. This goal emphasises the high standards of knowledge, skills and understanding
           required in the eight key learning areas as well as in literacy and numeracy. These performance
           indicators also relate to objectives 1.5 and 1.6 of Goal 1 which deal with vocational education and
           training, and information and communication technology respectively.
           However, performance measures noted as complete, such as literacy and numeracy, do not cover
           all the years of schooling. Moreover, all of the performance indicators envisaged for the future are
           focused on measuring student performance, rather than school performance.
           For the purposes of this project, the measurement of school performance is limited by the range of
           available performance indicators related to the National Goals. It is further limited by those
           performance indicators that can be consistently applied at a national level.
           Clearly, measuring school performance is reliant on the progress for measuring student
           performance. The gaps and limitations of student performance indicators described in the section
           above impose constraints on the ability of this project to measure school performance at a national
           level.
           School performance measurement is largely based on a composite measure of available student
           performance indicators. Goal 2 of the National Goals focuses on student achievement in
           curriculum areas but schools would also need to be tested against Goal 1, the development of



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                        Final May 05 Page 13
Resourcing The National Goals                                                             The Base Cost of Schooling


           students’ generic skills and affective qualities, and also Goal 3, which emphasises social justice and
           increased access to schooling for all students.
           Over and above these goals are measures that would need to indicate the extent to which a school
           adds value to student performance. Highly effective schools may add significant value to student
           performance but may not achieve all or even most of the National Goals because they are operating
           from a lower base of performance.
           Because of a lack of indicators to cover the entirety of the National Goals, the methodology
           developed for this project is limited to adapting a basic measure of school performance as its
           composite indicator. This is described below for the primary and secondary levels.

           The Standard for Primary Schools
           For primary schools, the standard was that at least 90 per cent of students had achieved the
           benchmark in each Basic Skill Test (BST), carried out in Years 3 and 5.
           These literacy and numeracy benchmarks identify the proportion of students who do not reach a
           minimum level of competence to continue successfully with their schooling. Measurement is
           achieved through State-based literacy and numeracy monitoring programs. At each of years 3 and
           5, equating the State and Territory tests is a three stage process. The first stage involves the
           construction of common achievement scales for each of reading, writing, and numeracy. During
           the second stage the location of the benchmark on the common achievement scale is determined
           and, in the final stage, the equivalent benchmark locations on State and Territory achievement
           scales are calculated.
           The results are for assessed students. This term has been used for students who sat the test and
           students who were formally exempted. Exempted students are reported as below benchmark and
           thus are included in the benchmark calculation. Students not included in the benchmark calculation
           are those who were absent or withdrawn by parents / care-givers from the testing and students
           attending a school not participating in the testing.

           The Standard for Secondary Schools
           Several indicators of success were considered, taking into account the differences in testing and
           certification of students in the various jurisdictions. Two indicators were agreed to be useful at the
           national level - the award of a Universities Admission Index score (UAI) and the rate of
           completion of students of Year 12.
           For Stage 1 of this report, the standard was that the school median UAI was at least equal to the
           respective state average, and that a minimum of 75 per cent of students at that school completed
           Year 12.
           The measures used in this study cannot capture the entire range of knowledge, abilities and
           character formation expressed through the National Goals. The study has used the most reliable,
           nationally comparable measures available. These measures may, in fact, be accurate proxies for
           the National Goals but it is impossible to establish such a relationship nor would it be wise to do
           so. The schools that this study labels as effective may be achieving some or all of the National
           Goals but this study does not claim to establish such a relationship. The National Goals are broad
           in nature while the measures used in this study are specific.
           The basic measures of school effectiveness adopted by the study have been determined by the need
           to inform Ministers of the cost of resourcing the agreed National Goals for Schooling. While many
           schools may be extremely effective in adding value to the academic ability of their student
           population, this study must use achievement of the National Goals as its reference point.
           The study agrees that the basic measures used do not cover the totality of the National Goals.
           However, the project can only cost against those school outcomes that are currently being
           measured. Moreover, these outcomes, limited in scope though they may be, clearly do have a
           relationship to the achievement of the National Goals, even if they might not capture the totality of
           our country’s aspirations for schools and students.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                        Final May 05 Page 14
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                              The Base Cost of Schooling


2.3        Base Cost - The First Tier of Analysis



                                                   Base Cost of Schooling –
                            as measured by Existing Least Cost (ELC) Schools

                  •   The Base cost estimate of schooling has been estimated by examining the actual average per capita
                      recurrent costs of a set of government schools that (i) are operating in middle-range SES communities,
                      (ii) have a school and student profile that attracts very limited (if any) additional targeted resourcing
                      from government, and (iii) have students meeting a set of specified participation and learning
                      benchmarks.

                  •   The Base cost is a theoretical estimate of the efficiency frontier for schooling as measured by existing
                      least cost for primary and secondary schools (two separate estimates ).

                  •   Nationally, approximately 260 schools were found to fit the strict selection criteria required to be defined
                      as Existing Least Cost (ELC) schools.




           The second tier of analysis (Part 2 of this report) considers the future Additional Resourcing Needs
           (future ARN) of schools. The future ARN of schools is the product of (i) non-discretionary factors
           - inherent attributes of the students or the school outside the control of school management that
           generate additional resourcing requirements above the ELC, and (ii) those future additional
           resource demands generated by an expanded curriculum.

2.4        Calculating Base cost - methodology



                                 Base Cost Analysis – Overview of Methodology
                                                                                                                      Responsibility
              Task Description
              Task 1 Identification of those schools effective in attaining a set of nationally consistent                  States
              learning outcomes for the primary and secondary levels

              Task 2 Identification of schools categorised as Existing Least Cost (ELC)
                                                                                                                            States
              Task 3 Identification of all ELC schools for each jurisdiction that are effective in attaining the
              specified national learning outcomes (primary schools) and are effective in retaining their                   States
              students to Year 12 and attain specified median UAI exit results for Year 12 students
              (secondary schools)

              Task 4 Financial analysis of those schools that are effective in attaining the specified national
              learning outcomes
                                                                                                                            SRT
              Comment                                                                                                       secretariat,
              The Base Cost of schooling has been derived as an average of the costs of all                                 and contractor
              government schools that fit the criteria of being effective and having a profile
              that draws the least amount of government resources. It is not a sample of
              government schools, but all government schools that were identified as
              meeting the specified conditions for being effective and with a least cost
              profile.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                             Final May 05 Page 15
Resourcing The National Goals                                                            The Base Cost of Schooling




           The Base Cost of Schooling
           The Base cost is the platform upon which estimates were derived for developing cost projections
           for any school. The Base cost does not represent the average cost of a typical school. It represents
           the existing recurrent costs of schools, operating largely without a designated set of school or
           student related marginal costs drivers, and whose students meet a set of specified participation and
           learning benchmarks.
           In establishing a Base cost, the study:
           1. included out of school and school level costs of sampled government schools catering to an
              average SES community.
           2. estimated existing least cost for an average SES primary school with as few as possible special
              needs groups (or other factors) to meet national goals for literacy and numeracy.
           3. estimated existing least cost for an average SES secondary school with as few as possible
              special needs groups (or other associated marginal cost factors) that successfully retains
              students through its junior and secondary cycles and has senior students attaining a specified
              median University Admissions Index (UAI) score (or its moderated equivalent).
           Detailed analysis and comparison of Base cost expenditures did not include out of school
           (systemic) costs. By focusing on school level economies the study was best able to compare the
           differential use and need of resources between ELC schools and system wide averages.

           Scope of Study
           The study was conducted on a national basis, covering the entire government school delivery
           systems of all states and territories. By focusing on school level costs, the study explored the cost
           impact of the differing scale and scope of educational services provided by schools across
           Australia.
           The costs of schooling capture the resource inputs required at the school level and system level in
           order to meet specified learning outcomes. However, Stage 1 of this study only estimated the Base
           cost related to a set range of learning outcomes for the primary level (literacy and numeracy) and
           broad participation and UAI performance indicators for secondary schools. While the cost of these
           inputs will go a long way to addressing resource needs in all Learning Areas (LA), they do not
           represent total cost of resource needs for all LA.
           The study did not produce Base cost figures that cover the resource requirements for the whole of
           curriculum. Such figures at a national level will only be possible if there is convergence at a
           national level on curriculum and assessment. At the time of this report, the Performance
           Measurement and Reporting Taskforce (PMRT) of MCEETYA was developing Key Performance
           Measures (KPM) for comparable education attainment within six learning areas from the National
           Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century. This stream of activity may also be useful at a
           later stage in linking school level costs with measures of school effectiveness across a wider range
           of learning areas.

2.5        Detailed Description of Stage 1 Methodology

2.5.1      Task 1: Identification of “effective” schools
           The criteria for “effectiveness” were:
           Primary schools
               • Schools that have at least 90% of all primary school students succeed in meeting the level
                    required by the national benchmark Basic Skills Tests (BST) of Reading, Writing and
                    Numeracy in Years 3 and 5.
           Secondary schools




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                       Final May 05 Page 16
Resourcing The National Goals                                                              The Base Cost of Schooling


                •     Schools where the median UAI results are equivalent to the State-wide median entrance
                      rank for all students (adjusted for QLD).
                •     Schools where Yr 9-Yr 12 apparent retention rates are at least 75 per cent.
           Lists of effective schools from each jurisdiction were prepared according to these criteria.

2.5.2      Task 2: Identification of schools categorised as ELC
           ELC schools represent the anticipated least cost service delivery option for the primary and
           secondary school levels catering for an average SES community. ELC schools are schools that;
               • cater for an average SES student enrolment profile,
               • possess least cost attributes for a school in each jurisdiction (location, size, etc),
               • have very few learners requiring access to equity/special programs to attain BST learning
                    outcomes.
           The ELC school is not a typical school. It is a category of school that has been selected to capture
           ‘least recurrent cost’ resourcing requirements for a school servicing an average SES community.
           Schools were selected against the following criteria:
               • they catered for an average SES student enrolment profile (a nationally consistent
                    definition of ‘average SES’ was used).
               • they did not contain a relatively high number of students requiring equity / special needs
                    (eg, indigenous, new arrivals, disability).
               • they did not have additional cost burdens such as unusual size or remote location.

2.5.3      Task 3: Identification of all ELC schools for each jurisdiction that are effective
           The project then overlaid the results from tasks (1) and (2) described above.

           Figure 2.2: ELC Selection Methodology


.




                                           1                 3                 2


           1 = Select effective schools
           2 = Select least cost schools
           3 = Effective ELC schools



           Each jurisdiction developed their list of effective ELC schools and submitted it to the SRT
           secretariat.
           2001 calendar year financial data were used and data set requirements for financial analysis were
           based on the MCEETYA definition of “in-school” costs.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                         Final May 05 Page 17
Resourcing The National Goals                                                            The Base Cost of Schooling




2.5.4      Task 4: Undertake cost analysis for ELC schools
           Data was submitted to an independent contractor for statistical analysis. Detailed analysis and
           report writing was undertaken by the SRT secretariat with review and support from the project
           Steering Committee and the SRT members.



                                               Types of Analysis
                        Output Unit Cost Analysis
                             • Per student
                             • Efficiency comparisons (median, upper and lower limits)

                        Resource Input Analysis (for available data items)
                             • Teacher salaries
                             • Other salaries
                             • Grants and subsidies
                             • Other operating expenses

                        Configuration of Inputs Analysis
                              • Average pupil : teacher ratio
                              • School size




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                       Final May 05 Page 18
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                        The Base Cost of Schooling




2.6        Base Cost of Schooling - results

2.6.1      Unit Cost Analysis


                                               Unit cost analysis – summary

             Total Base Cost of Schooling (2003 prices)

                   •    ‘Total’ refers to expenditures on schooling that are financed from government sources and school
                        generated revenues
                   •    Total Base cost for government primary schools is $ 6,467 per student (in-school/out of school
                        recurrent costs, 2003 prices)
                   •    Total Base cost of government primary schools is approximately 17% less per student than the
                        government school average
                   •    Total Base cost for government secondary schools is $ 9,130 per student (in-school/out of school
                        recurrent costs, 2003 prices)
                   •    Total Base cost of government secondary schools is approximately 10% less per student than the
                        government school average
                   •    Drawing on school generated revenues, Base cost primary schools in 2001, had on average $251 per
                        student in bank held savings, while Base cost secondary schools held on average, $590 per student.

             Public Base Cost of Schooling (2003 prices)

                   •    ‘Public’ refers to expenditures on schooling that are government financed (State and Commonwealth
                        sources)
                   •    Public Base cost of government primary schools is $ 6,201 per student (in-school/out of school
                        recurrent costs, 2003 prices)
                   •    Public Base cost of government primary schools is approximately $1,300 (17%) less per student than
                        the government school average
                   •    Public Base cost for government secondary schools is $ 8,504 per student (in-school/out of school
                        recurrent costs, 2003 prices)
                   •    Public Base cost of government secondary schools is approximately $1,300 (13%) less per student
                        than the government school average

             School level expenditures, public funds - (2001 prices)

                   •    ELC primary and secondary schools spent approximately $1,000 less per student than the
                        government school average
                   •    The ELC downward variation from average government primary school expenditure was 18%
                   •    The ELC downward variation from average government secondary school expenditure was 13%




           Data collection
           The unit cost analysis of this study was focused on a comparison of two sets of figures: (i)
           recurrent unit cost of ELC schools in Australia and (ii) ‘government school average’ recurrent unit
           cost of schooling in Australia.
           The government school average refers to the in-school costs and was based on MCEETYA
           collected financial and non-financial data. Some of this data was sourced from the financial data
           tables published (or to be published after the time of writing) as part of the annual Australian
           National Report on Schooling (ANR). In addition, data was obtained from the National Schools
           Statistics Collection (NSSC), a non-published data source for the use of government officials.
           Published and unpublished data was collected and presented as part of this report according to the
           protocols established by MCEETYA.
           The figures for recurrent unit cost of ELC schools were calculated from the data provided by each
           state jurisdiction. Each state jurisdiction was responsible for (i) implementing clearly specified


Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                    Final May 05 Page 19
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                         The Base Cost of Schooling


           methodologies for identifying ELC schools, and (ii) collecting and presenting financial and non-
           financial data according to a nationally consistent format.
           Data was collected from all states and territories except for the Northern Territory. Given the
           student enrolment share of the Northern Territory, its absence from Stage 1 analysis did not greatly
           affect the ELC calculations. (The Northern Territory participated in Stage 2 of the project.)
           There were 261 ELC schools in total identified by the state jurisdictions. The number and location
           of these schools is shown in the table below. Individual schools were not identified. Identification
           was not important for project purposes and formed part of the agreement for collecting and making
           data available for study purposes. Hence school names were not provided by state jurisdictions.
           The disproportionate distribution of ELC schools across states (relative to state jurisdiction shares
           of government schools) was striking. This was probably a reflection of the impact of student
           related criteria that were used to exclude certain schools. The size and concentration of student
           attributes (e.g. SES, ESL need) tended to exclude more schools from being classified ‘ELC’ in
           some states than in others. The number of ELC schools identified by each state cannot be
           interpreted as an indicator of state performance against the National Goals.
           The ACT and Tasmania were not included in the study of secondary costs. Their use of middle
           schools and senior secondary colleges posed obstacles to the implementation of the project
           methodology. First, it was not possible to identify middle schools and senior secondary colleges
           using the combined academic performance and participation indicators. Second, the middle
           school/senior college system introduced cost structures in secondary schooling that were markedly
           different from those in the other states. Given the relatively minor share of total secondary schools
           in these jurisdictions, their exclusion from this aspect of Stage 1 was considered appropriate.

           Table 2.1: ELC Schools, by State and Level

            Jurisdiction                                                Primary                   Secondary                       Total
            NSW                                                            25                          23                          48
            Victoria                                                       31                          32                          63
            Queensland                                                     32                          31                          63
            South Australia                                                 3                           7                          10
            Western Australia                                              58                           7                          65
            Tasmania                                                        3                          0*                           3
            ACT                                                             9                          0*                           9
            Northern Territory**                                            0                           0                           0
            National                                                      161                           0                          261

         * Secondary schools were not considered from Tasmania and ACT because of the separation of middle schools and senior secondary
         colleges creating cost profiles different from the other states
         ** Northern Territory did not participate in Stage One of the project. The student and school profiles in the Northern Territory were
         considered as part of Stage Two.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                      Final May 05 Page 20
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                        The Base Cost of Schooling



           Results of Unit Cost Analysis
           The tables below present the key figures generated by the unit cost analysis. Tables show results in
           actual reported 2001 prices and with price adjustments (based on AGSRC indexation) converting
           these to 2003 prices. The Base cost of schooling is captured by the unit costs of the ELC schools
           compared with the average national cost of government schools. The financial comparisons are
           made on an accrual basis - excluding user costs of capital and transport.
           Public recurrent costs refer only to expenditure that is financed from government sources
           (Commonwealth and state). Expenditures in ELC primary and secondary schools were found to be
           $1,068 and $1,062 less per capita than the respective government school average. System wide
           expenditures carry an additional allocation of expenditure based on a national average expenditure
           for ‘out of school’ expenses as identified and reported by the ANR 2001. These out of school
           expenses have been apportioned equally between primary and secondary schools and ELC schools
           have been attributed this national average.

           Table 2.2: Public recurrent unit costs – per student

                                                    2001 prices                                               2003 prices
                                                              Govt school                                                   Govt school
                                       ELC schools ($        average ($ per                    ELC schools                 average ($ per
                                         per capita)            capita)                        ($ per capita)                 capita)
               System Wide
                 Primary                     5,443                      6,511                       6,201                        7,497
                Secondary                    7,467                      8,529                       8,504                        9,810
               School level
                 Primary                     4,982                      6,050                       5,670                        6,966
                Secondary                    7,006                      8,068                       7,973                        9,279
         * recurrent costs in this study do not include user costs of capital or transport costs. MCEETYA in-school costs have been adjusted to
         account for this.

           The total expenditure for schooling (combining revenues from government sources and school
           generated sources) shows a minor growth in expenditure. The government average school
           generated revenues were estimated at three percent of total government expenditure (accrual basis,
           in school and out of school items). This equated to $251 and $325 per capita for primary and
           secondary schools respectively in 2003 prices. The estimate for school generated revenues of ELC
           schools is based on the findings from Stage 1 of the project. This found that bank held savings in
           ELC schools from non-government sources equalled $266 and $626 per capita in 2003 prices. The
           secondary school estimate for ELC schools is considerably higher than the government school and
           this reduced the resource gap between ELC and average government school resourcing.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05 Page 21
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                       The Base Cost of Schooling



           Table 2.3: Recurrent unit costs (public sources and school generated revenues) – per student
                                                           2001 prices                                               2003 prices
                                 ELC schools ($ per          Govt school average               ELC schools              Govt school average
                                      capita)                   ($ per capita)                 ($ per capita)              ($ per capita)
             System wide
             Primary                    5,694                        6,720                        6,467                        7,747
             Secondary                  8,057                        8,803                        9,130                        10,135
             School level
             Primary                    5,233                        6,260                        5,936                         7,217
             Secondary                  7,596                        8,343                        8,599                         9,604
         * Recurrent costs in this study do not include user costs of capital or transport costs. MCEETYA in-school costs have been adjusted to
         account for this. School generated revenues estimated at 3% of total govt expenditures – (2001 per capita - primary = $209, secondary =
         $275) 2003 estimates for school revenues based on 3% of total govt expenditure (accrual excluding user cost of capital and transport)


           Table 2.4: Base cost as a proportion of average government expenditure, per capita (%)

                                                Public funded ELC as % of public                 Total ELC as % of total recurrent costs
                                                       recurrent costs (%)                             (including school revenues)
             System wide
             Primary                                              83%                                                 83%
             Secondary                                            87%                                                 90%
             School level
             Primary                                              81%                                                 82%
             Secondary                                            86%                                                 90%

           Analysis and policy implications
           The ELC estimate produced for primary and secondary levels of schooling was the key finding of
           Stage 1 of the project. These figures confirmed a downward variation in the per student expenditure
           of ELC schools when compared with the average cost of government schools at primary and
           secondary levels. The variation is a significant discount on the average costs of government
           schooling. There are some significant implications from this finding.
           Variations around average cost of government schooling - the results of Stage 1 indicated that any
           simple per capita calculation of average cost of government schooling disguises a diverse spread of
           per capita costs generated by different schools. Stage 1 found that government schools can and do
           operate effectively at significantly below average per capita funding where school attributes (size
           and location) and student attributes have limited additional resourcing needs. By acknowledging and
           classifying the contextual variability of schooling (school, student and curriculum related, studied in
           Stage 2) the resource requirements of schools operating under different conditions can be specified
           with a greater degree of accuracy.
           Systemic tendency towards efficient resource allocation across schools - governments in Australia
           are (on aggregate) successfully managing to direct fewer than average publicly funded resources to
           those schools that have lower than average resourcing needs. That is, funding for schools is not
           distributed (by formula or effect) on a flat per capita basis and there is certainly no positive bias in
           funding towards government schools that have lower than average resourcing needs. In so far as
           school resourcing needs at a macro level are defined by school and student attributes, government
           schooling systems have a tendency towards efficient allocation of aggregate levels of resources
           across schools. This suggests the broad policy settings and operational guidelines of government
           schooling systems have an orientation towards appropriately recognising differential resourcing
           needs of schools.
           The unmet cost of high resource need schools - this issue was addressed in Stage 2 of the project.
           Stage 1 did not attempt to answer the question of the additional resource requirements of schools that
           have a higher resource need profile.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                   Final May 05 Page 22
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                       The Base Cost of Schooling


           School resourcing as a necessary but insufficient condition for effective schooling - the usual caveat
           must apply. The inherently complex process of schooling means that no one factor can ensure the
           success of any particular institution. The provision of any given amount of funding to any school
           does not ensure that it will be able to produce any specified educational outcomes for its students.

2.7        Efficiency range


                                          Narrow efficiency range of ELC schools
                    •    National Coefficient of Relative Variation (CRV) results revealed a narrow recurrent cost efficiency
                         range.
                    •    The recurrent unit costs of ELC primary schools have a CRV of 18 %.
                    •    The recurrent unit costs of ELC secondary schools have a CRV of 14%.
                    •    The tight ELC efficiency range indicated that the ELC figure is robust for preliminary purposes of
                         macro-level costing.
                    •    For purposes of funding to a school level, any ELC type figure would need to be applied with caution.
                    •    Regression analysis indicated that the combined impact of school size and student/teacher ratio
                         explained less than one-third of the difference in costs between ELC schools




2.7.1      Narrow efficiency range of ELC schools

           Table 2.5: ELC Schools - Coefficient of Relative Variation (CRV) - Recurrent Cost per Student
            Level                                                                       Coefficient of relative variation (CRV)*
            Primary                                                                                          18%
            Secondary                                                                                        14%

         * based on raw cost data for each schools with no state based weightings. Calculation = standard deviation/mean average of recurrent unit
         cost


           The cost analysis of ELC schools was focused on the ‘average cost’ of ELC schools at an aggregate
           cost and per budget line item level. Detailed analysis of cost variations in ELC schools showed
           minimal difference between median and mean calculations of average cost for these schools on a
           state by state basis. The mean calculation was therefore chosen as the measure for ‘average cost’.
           This ‘average cost’ figure was the most significant calculation for stage 1 of this project.
           There was also an outstanding need to understand the efficiency range of ELC schools operating
           within the controlled conditions established by their selection. A very simple indicator of the
           efficiency range of ELC schools is the Coefficient of Relative Variation (CRV) of total recurrent unit
           costs. That is, CRV represents the standard deviation of the costs of the ELC population of schools
           as a proportion of the mean average recurrent unit cost of ELC schools. Measured on a raw
           unweighted basis (no state loadings for shares of total number of government schools) ELC primary
           schools had a CRV of 18 %. ELC secondary schools had a CRV of 14%. Having a CRV of less than
           25%, these national results revealed a surprisingly narrow efficiency range. Given the extent of state
           jurisdictional policy parameters and control over service delivery a wider efficiency range may have
           been expected at the national level for aggregate recurrent unit costs.

2.7.2      Interpreting the efficiency range
           It is important to recognise that there was an efficiency range in which these schools operated.
           Further, it cannot be assumed that schools operating below the average ELC per capita cost were
           doing so because of a more efficient allocation of resources. Conversely, schools operating above the
           average cannot be assumed to have been operating inefficiently relative to those below the average
           due to their allocation of resources.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                    Final May 05 Page 23
Resourcing The National Goals                                                              The Base Cost of Schooling


           There are a few reasons for this. First, while all these ELC schools met the project specified standard
           for educational outcomes, the extent to which they exceeded this standard varied. Therefore, it is
           possible that some schools with above average cost per student were delivering far superior learning
           outcomes.
           Second, schools have other inherent attributes that impose different cost burdens – for example, the
           salary profile of teachers (where this is not decided at the school level) and age and style of buildings
           impacting on the cost of maintenance.
           Third, the ELC definition of schools did allow for the limited presence of some marginal cost
           drivers. This may have driven up the per capita cost in some cases, however the impact of this was
           expected to have been minimal.
           The relatively tight efficiency range of ELC schools (as demonstrated by the CRV for average
           recurrent unit costs for ELC schools) indicated that the ELC figure ws robust for the preliminary
           purposes of macro-level costing. For purposes of funding to a school level, any ELC type figure
           would need to be applied with caution. The parallel use of other diagnostic indicators would be
           needed to facilitate a more flexible funding approach catering for specific circumstances and
           anomalies.
           It is not possible to compare the efficiency range of ELC schools with the national government
           school average. The absence of school based data at a national level makes such an analysis
           impossible. At any rate, such analysis would likely yield more meaningful results were it conducted
           on a state by state basis thereby disentangling state jurisdictional parameters (such as salary levels)
           from analysis of any patterns in the configuration of inputs (‘resource mix’) in ELC schools.

2.7.3      Configuration of key inputs – impact on efficiency
           The configuration of key inputs can have a major impact on the cost of schooling. Class and school
           sizes are two variables that are often identified as having a major impact on the overall cost and
           efficiency of schooling. As an initial exploratory exercise, stage 1 examined the cost correlation of
           student/teacher ratios and size of school enrolments within ELC primary schools. It was not possible
           to base the analysis on class sizes because this data was not collected for the ELC schools
           School size was one of the selection criteria for identifying ELC schools. Primary ELC schools were
           to have an enrolment base of between 100-500 students and secondary ELC schools between 500-
           1000 students.
           The student/teacher ratios of ELC schools were revealed by analysis. The full-time student/teaching
           staff ratios for ELC primary (18.4:1) and ELC secondary (13.4:1) were higher in both cases than the
           government school average (16.8:1 and 12.4:1 respectively). This discrepancy was not surprising as
           these ELC schools were selected partly on the basis that they had minimal staff inefficiencies related
           to school size or additional staffing need related to student profile.

           Table 2.6: Full-Time Student/Staff Ratios (2001)

            State/National                                ELC schools*               Govt. school average **
            Primary                                            18.8                            16.8
            Secondary                                          13.4                            12.4
         *State weighted average
         **Source: ANR 2001, Table 19


           Simple regression analysis was undertaken to investigate factors that caused total costs per student
           for each ELC school to differ. The analysis was conducted at a national level. The regression
           analysis sought to explain total school costs (per student) across ELC schools as a function of their
           respective student/staff ratios and/or differences in the total number of students. In other words, if we
           were to take two primary schools and observe the difference between them in the total per student
           cost, we would ask whether this difference is related to any difference in their student/staff ratio and
           student numbers.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                         Final May 05 Page 24
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                             The Base Cost of Schooling


           The regression analysis produced the following equation for estimating total education costs for the
           primary schools:
           PRIMARY Total Education Cost ($) = $6,301 - 66(Ratio of students to staff) - 2.62(FTE Students
           Total)
           This equation allowed an estimation of the amount that total cost will change given a one-unit
           change in either of the two input variables. For example, an increase in the student/staff ratio of one
           student would reduce total costs per student by $66. Similarly, increasing the total school size by
           one student, with all else constant, would reduce total costs by approximately $2.60. Of these two
           variables, school size had the strongest correlation with total per student cost (b = -0.44), with the
           standardized correlation coefficient for student/staff ratio only -0.21.
           These two variables together only explained less than a third of the variation across ELC schools in
           total in-school costs (Adjusted R-square = 0.29). At the national level, this suggests that although we
           could use such a regression equation to estimate the impact that changes in student/staff ratios and
           school size could have on per student ELC costs, we cannot have a high degree of confidence that
           such an estimate would actually explain more than a third of any variation. Other factors (such as
           state jurisdiction of education) also need to be taken into account for a more complete explanation of
           differences between ELC schools in total education costs per student.

2.7.4      Analysis of Resource Inputs


                                                Analysis of Resource Inputs
            Primary schools

                  •   Teacher salary related costs at ELC schools were $3,546 per student –9% under the government
                      primary school average of $3,903.

                  •   ELC expenditures varied most significantly from average government school expenditures in three
                      categories (i) other operating expenses, (ii) administration and support salary related expenses, and (iii)
                      grants and subsidies.

            Secondary schools

                  •   ELC expenditures varied significantly from average government school expenditures in only two
                      categories (i) other operating expenses, and (ii) administration and support salary related expenses.




           Introduction
           School level resource inputs have been measured and defined according to the budget categories
           agreed to by MCEETYA and widely used in its reports and publications. These broad budget
           categories allow for some analysis of resources based on functional use but are particularly limited in
           enabling the analysis of school level discretionary funds that may be covered by ‘grants and
           subsidies’. In spite of this limitation, these categories were adopted because expenditure data has
           been consistently collected by all states using this budget template.
           Two budget categories that are included as part of MCEETYA ‘in-school costs’ that were not
           incorporated as part of the Stage 1 analysis – (i) user costs of capital, and (ii) capital /investing costs.
           Capital/investing costs were excluded because they do not constitute a part of the recurrent costs of
           schooling. The user costs of capital were excluded because of the inconsistent calculation of these
           costs across different states. To ensure the comparability of data, all variations in the calculation of
           ELC ‘in-school’ costs were applied to the MCEETYA ‘in-school’ average costs for government
           schools.
           The table below presents the individual line items covered by each of the budget categories. Apart
           from the budget category ‘Other operating expenses’ all other categories contain the complete set of



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                         Final May 05 Page 25
Resourcing The National Goals                                                              The Base Cost of Schooling


           line items as collected by MCEETYA in its collection of finance statistics. For ‘Other operating
           expenses’, the line item ‘transport related costs’ was excluded. It was not possible to accurately
           collect data for this line item on a school by school basis. Significant variations in the per capita cost
           of transport across schools mean that an averaging of cost could be misleading.

           Table 2.7: Budget Categories and Cost Line Items

           Budget Category and component items
           Employee Related Expenses – Teachers
           Salaries
           Superannuation
           Long Service Leave
           Workers Compensation Insurance
           Payroll Tax
           Fringe Benefits Tax
           Other

           Employee Related Expenses - Administrative and Support Staff
           Salaries - Admin. & Clerical
           Salaries – Executive
           Salaries - Specialist Support
           Salaries and Wages – Other
           Superannuation
           Long Service Leave
           Workers Compensation Insurance
           Payroll Tax
           Fringe Benefits Tax
           Other

           Redundancy Payments
           Redundancy

           Other Operating Expenses
           Cleaning
           Repairs and Maintenance
           Other

           Grants and Subsidies
           Grants and Subsidies to Schools
           Other Grants and Subsidies

           Depreciation
           Building & improvements
           Plant & equipment
           Amortisation

           Other School Expenses
           School generated revenues




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                          Final May 05 Page 26
Resourcing The National Goals                                                             The Base Cost of Schooling




           Detailed Analysis of Resource Inputs
           Teacher salary related costs per student were the most significant cost item in all primary schools.
           However teacher salary related costs per student were marginally lower in ELC primary schools
           compared to the government school average. The lower per capita cost of teachers in ELC primary
           schools, compared to the government school average, is a product of the higher student/teacher ratio
           (18.8:1 in ELC schools compared to 16.8:1 for the government school average).
           The significantly lower overall cost of ELC schools was reflected in reduced per capita expenditure
           in all budget categories excluding redundancy payments.

           Table 2.8: Primary Schools Per Student Expenditure ($) by Budget Category (2001)
                                                                                               Most significant
                                                                                            deviations of ELC from
                                                ELC schools         Govt school average       government school
           Budget category                     ($ per student)        ($ per student)             average (%)
           Teacher: Salary related                  3,546                  3,903
           Admin & Support: salary- related          495                   762                        35%
           Redundancy payments                        26                    14
           Other operating expenses                  312                   578                        46%
           Grants & subsidies                        437                   546                        20%
           Depreciation                              167                   246
           Total                                    4,982                  6,050


           For secondary schools, the reduction in per capita expenditure was not evident in teacher related
           salaries with near parity between the ELC and government school average figures. The greatest part
           of the cost difference was accounted for by administration and support related salaries and other
           operating expenses. ELC schools at both primary and secondary levels have countervailing
           tendencies operating in terms of teacher salaries. On the one hand, higher than average student:
           teacher ratios drive the per capita cost lower than the average, but higher than average teacher
           salaries push the costs in the opposite direction. The net impact is minimal change from the average
           cost.

           Table 2.9: Secondary Schools - Per Student Expenditure ($) by Budget Category (2001)
                                                                                                Most significant
                                                                                             deviations of ELC from
                                                ELC schools        Govt school average        government school
           Budget category                     ($ per student)       ($ per student)              average (%)
           Teacher: Salary related                  5,303                 5,296
           Admin & Support: salary- related         522                    951                        45%
           Redundancy payments                       0                     18
           Other operating expenses                 347                    754                        54%
           Grants & subsidies                       615                    692
           Depreciation                             220                    357
           Total                                   7,006                  8,068




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                        Final May 05 Page 27
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                   The Base Cost of Schooling



            Figure 2.3: Primary/Secondary Schools - Per Student Expenditure ($) by Budget Category (2001)



                             6,000
                                                                                                                 Budget category ELC
                                                                                                                 primary schools ($ per
                             5,000                                                                               student)

                             4,000                                                                               Budget category Govt
          $ per student




                                                                                                                 primary school average
                             3,000                                                                               ($ per student)

                                                                                                                 Budget category ELC
                             2,000                                                                               secondary schools ($
                                                                                                                 per student)
                             1,000
                                                                                                                 Budget category Govt
                                                                                                                 secondary school
                                0
                                                                                                                 average ($ per student)
                                                                ts




                                                                                                      n
                                                               es




                                                                 s
                                                              ed
                                                                 d




                                                                                                   tio
                                                             ie
                                                             te




                                                            en




                                                           ns
                                                            at




                                                           id
                                                          la




                                                                                                cia
                                                        ym
                                                         el




                                                        bs
                                                        pe
                                                        re



                                                      -r




                                                                                              re
                                                     su
                                                     pa




                                                     ex
                                                     ry




                                                                                            ep
                                                    ry
                                                  la




                                                  &
                                                 la




                                                  y




                                                  g




                                                                                           D
                                              Sa




                                              nc




                                               in
                                              sa




                                               s
                                            at




                                            nt
                                          da
                                           r:




                                          t:




                                         er




                                         ra
                                       he




                                        or




                                       un



                                      op




                                       G
                                     pp
                                     ac




                                    ed



                                   er
                                  Su
                                  Te




                                   R



                                 th
                                &




                                O
                             in
                            m
                          Ad




            Teacher employee related expenses
            As a national average, all government primary schools in 2001 expended $ 3,903 per student for in-
            school teacher salary related items compared to $5,296 per student for secondary schools. This
            differential reflected the lower student/teacher ratio of secondary level schooling. There was a high
            degree of consistency across state averages (with the exception of Northern Territory which had
            considerably higher state averages) in their per student cost of teaching measured in terms of dollars
            per teacher related salary items.
            The ELC surveyed primary schools had an average expenditure of $3,546 with a coefficient of
            relative variation (CRV) of less than 11% across schools within each state.
            The ELC surveyed secondary schools had an average expenditure of $5,303 with a coefficient of
            relative variation (CRV) of less than 14% across schools within each state.

            Table 2.10: Average Recurrent Cost of Teachers, per Student (2001)*

                    Level               ELC schools ($ per student)                           Govt. school average ***($ per student)
                    Primary                     $3,546 **                                                    $3,903
                    Secondary                        $5,303                                                   $5,296
         * Based on MCEETYA defined teacher employee related expenses (including salaries, superannuation, long service leave, workers
         compensation, insurance)
         ** Weighted average based on state shares of total number of government schools
         *** Based on MCEETYA enrolment figures and in-school expenditures for 2000/01 ‘employee related salaries – teachers’


            The cost of primary teachers as a proportion of total school level recurrent costs averaged 71%
            nationally for ELC primary schools compared to 65 % for all government primary schools.
            For secondary schools, the cost of teachers as a proportion of total school level recurrent costs
            averaged 76% nationally for ELC secondary schools compared to 66% for the all government
            secondary schools average.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                 Final May 05 Page 28
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                   The Base Cost of Schooling


           This difference between proportionate expenditure on teachers in ELC schools and the government
           school average was a result of a lower total average expenditure across all government schools on
           other non-teacher salary items. It was not a product of greater per student expenditure on teacher
           salaries within the ELC schools.

           Table 2.11:        Cost of Teachers as Proportion of School Level Recurrent Costs*

            Level                             ELC Schools (%)                                     Govt. school average (%)
            Primary                                  71**                                                      65
            Secondary                                76**                                                      66
         * Based on MCEETYA defined teacher employee related expenses (including salaries, superannuation, long service leave, workers
         compensation, insurance)
         ** Weighted average based on state shares of total number of government schools


           The weight of teacher salaries as the predominant cost item can also be seen in comparison to other
           non-teacher salaries at the school level. For primary schools, teacher salaries at ELC schools
           absorbed 88% of the total salary bill compared with the 84% government primary school average.
           This difference reflected the reduced expenditure for administration and support related salaries in
           ELC schools.
           A similar pattern was revealed in secondary schools. Teachers accounted for 91% of the total salary
           bill at the ELC school level and 85% of total salaries for all government secondary schools at the
           national level. The greater share of total salaries obtained by teachers in ELC schools can be
           explained at least in part by the reduced expenditures on administration and support related salaries
           in these schools. As seen further below, expenditures on these other non-teacher salaries average
           $522 per student in ELC schools compared with $951 across all government secondary schools. The
           greater share of teacher salaries within ELC schools may also reflect some salary differentials from
           the national average for government schools. This however could not be discerned from the available
           data.

           Table 2.12:        Teacher Costs as % of Total School Level Salary Related Expenses
            State                             ELC Schools (%)                                    Govt. schools average (%)
            Primary                                  88**                                                      84
            Secondary                                91**                                                      85
         * Based on MCEETYA defined teacher employee related expenses (including salaries, superannuation, long service leave, workers
         compensation, insurance)
         ** Weighted average based on state shares of total number of government schools


           The average salaries of teachers in ELC schools can also be compared with the industrial award
           salary range for classroom teachers. In all states, the ELC average teacher salary was either in the top
           quarter of the salary range or exceeding the salary scale. The high average is in part attributable to
           the impact of non-classroom teacher salaries (such as principals, deputy-principal teachers and
           executive teachers) within the ‘teacher related salaries’ category of expenses measured by
           MCEETYA. It does suggest however that average salary levels in ELC schools are not at the lower
           end and likely to be concentrated at the higher end of the salary scale in most states. Developing a
           more nuanced understanding of the cost of labour inputs requires a qualitative study at the school
           level examining issues such as academic qualifications, experience and hierarchical relativities.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                               Final May 05 Page 29
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                           The Base Cost of Schooling




           Table 2.13:          ELC Teacher Salaries and National Award Salary Range for Teachers (2001)

            Level             ELC Average Teacher Salary *                National Award Salary Range for Teachers**
                                                                                       Minimum                                Maximum
            Primary                           $52,031                                   34,104                                 52,500
            Secondary                         $51,925                                   34,104                                  52,500
         * Includes the salaries of (i) non-classroom ‘teachers’ such as principals, deputy-principals, (ii) salaries and loadings for teachers with
         additional duties (e.g. executive teachers). National average derived by applying loading factor for each state based on its share of total
         schools in Australia
         ** Data provided by NSW DET ‘Award salary bandwidth for classroom teachers, 2001’



           Administration and support related salaries
           There were significant variations across states for ‘administration and support salaries’ related items.
           However in all states (except for primary schools in Western Australia) the expenditure in ELC
           schools was less than the state government school average. While intra-state variations in ELC
           secondary schools were more significant (CRV between 13%-29%) than for teacher related salaries,
           the data still suggests a relatively consistent lower funding of the ELC schools for this budget
           category.

           Table 2.14:          Administration and Support Related Salaries per Student (2001)

            State                                       ELC Schools ($ per student)                    Govt. schools average ($ per student)
            Primary                                                   $495                                                 $762
            Secondary                                                 $528                                                 $951

           Redundancy payments
           ‘Redundancy payments’ appeared as ELC school costs only in primary schools and in only two
           states (Western Australia and ACT). The average primary ELC cost for redundancies ($26) was very
           close to the national average for government primary schools ($14). The low impact of redundancies
           as a cost upon the system reflected the relative stability of government education systems during the
           study period.

           Other Operating Expenses
           As explained earlier, transport costs were excluded as a line item from the ‘other operating expenses’
           category. An adjustment was made to the MCEETYA in-school figures for the government school
           average cost to enable comparability of the data.
           ‘Other operating expenses’ in each state for ELC schools were lower than for government school
           state averages in all states. The consistency of the reduced expenditure across states and its
           magnitude made this a significant difference. The other operating expenses category includes the
           cost item ‘consultancies’ and this could be one important factor explaining the difference between
           the average government school cost and ELC schools. The labour and associated costs of targeted
           support programs and initiatives for non-ELC schools are likely to be ‘receipted’ as consultancies.
           At the secondary level, all states had a CRV of less than 19% except for Victoria with 150%
           showing a wide range of expenditures. For primary schools, there was a wider dispersal of
           expenditures within states with a CRV range from 12%-88%.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                        Final May 05 Page 30
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                   The Base Cost of Schooling




           Table 2.15:        Average Recurrent Unit Cost of Operating Expenses, per Student (2001)

            Level                            ELC schools ($ per student) *                 Govt. schools average ($ per student)**
            Primary                                         312                                                 578
            Secondary                                       347                                                 754
         * Weighted average based on state shares of total number of government schools
         ** Based on MCEETYA enrolment figures and in-school expenditures for 2000/01 ‘other operating expenses’ – not including salaries,
         transport costs



           Grants and Subsidies
           ‘Grants and subsidies’ in each state for ELC primary schools ($437) were lower than the national
           government primary school average ($546). There was a CRV of 26% or less for all states. Parallel
           to this is a significant degree of variation between state averages (for ELC and all government
           schools). This suggests that while state policies had a dominant impact on the level of funds received
           by all schools, within state policy parameters, ELC schools captured less of these funds than other
           average government primary schools.
           Per student expenditure on ‘grants and subsidies’ did not show as strong a difference at a national
           level between ELC secondary schools ($615) and the national average for secondary schools ($692).

           Table 2.16:        Average Recurrent Unit Cost of Grants and Subsidies, per Student (2001)

            State/National                      ELC schools ($ per student)                  Govt. school average ($ per student)**
            National*                                          437                                               546
            Secondary                                          615                                               692
         * Weighted average based on state shares of total number of government schools
         ** Based on MCEETYA enrolment figures and in-school expenditures for 2000/01 ‘grants & subsidies’ – not including salaries



           Depreciation
           Average ‘depreciation’ expenditures for ELC primary schools ($167) were less than the national
           average for government schools ($246). For secondary ELC schools, depreciation averaged $220 per
           student which was again significantly lower than the national government schools per student
           average expenditure ($357).
           The depreciation figures need to be treated with caution. Some of the state jurisdictions supplying
           this data were concerned that it may not have accurately covered the extent of depreciation for the
           ELC schools. This relates to the particular complexity of measuring depreciation at an individual
           school level without a thorough audit of physical facilities and equipment. In addition, the
           differences in depreciation methods across states as well as different capitalisation thresholds for
           plant and equipment made consistency and accuracy very difficult at a national level of analysis. The
           CRV for depreciation expenditures of each state ranged from 15%-49% at the primary level and
           14%-41% at the secondary level.

           Proportionate distribution of costs
           The smaller quantity of total resources available to ELC primary schools meant that the relatively
           fixed value of teacher salaries consumed on average 6% more of total resources (from 71% to 65%).
           For secondary schools, a similar pattern appeared with teacher salaries consuming 76% of the per
           student expenditure in ELC secondary schools compared with 66% on average across all government
           secondary schools.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                 Final May 05 Page 31
Resourcing The National Goals                                                           The Base Cost of Schooling


           Conversely, ELC schools spent proportionately less than the government school average
           administration and support related salaries (10% compared with 13%) and other operating expenses
           (6% compared with 10%).
           Comparing the relative distribution of available resources across budget categories between ELC
           schools and state averages for government schools can be a little misleading. It should not be
           interpreted to mean that ELC schools spent a greater amount on teacher salaries – either per teacher
           or per student. The greater proportion of total expenditure consumed by teacher salary related items
           indicates something very different.
           First, it demonstrates that government school systems allocated fewer non-teaching resources to the
           relatively advantaged ELC schools than they did on average to all government schools, Second, it
           indicates that ELC schools operating within such favourable conditions managed to perform
           adequately in terms of specified outcomes with relatively fewer additional non-teacher salary related
           inputs than the national government school average.

           Table 2.17:      Expenditure (%) by resource inputs: ELC Primary Schools and Govt. Primary School
                            average

           Budget category                               ELC schools (%)           Govt school average (%)
           Teacher: Salary related                             71                             65
           Admin & Support: salary- related                    10                             13
           Redundancy payments                                  1                              0
           Other operating expenses                             6                             10
           Grants & subsidies                                   9                              9
           Depreciation                                         3                              4
           Total                                               100                            100


           Table 2.18: Expenditure Resource Inputs: ELC Secondary Schools and Govt. Secondary
                      School Average

           Budget category                               ELC schools (%)           Govt school average (%)
           Teacher: Salary related                             76                             66
           Admin & Support: salary- related                     7                             12
           Redundancy payments                                  0                              0
           Other operating expenses                             5                              9
           Grants & subsidies                                   9                              9
           Depreciation                                         3                              4
           Total                                               100                            100




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                      Final May 05 Page 32
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                         The Base Cost of Schooling



           Figure 2.4: Expenditure (%) by resource inputs: ELC primary/secondary schools and Govt.
                      primary/secondary school average

                         80                                                                                       ELC primary schools
                                                                                                                  (%)
                         70
                                                                                                                  Govt primary school
                         60                                                                                       average (%)
                                                                                                                  ELC secondary
            Percentage




                         50
                                                                                                                  schools (%)
                         40                                                                                       Govt secodary
                                                                                                                  school average (%)
                         30

                         20

                         10

                         0
                                Teacher:       Admin &    Redundancy     Other     Grants &    Depreciation
                              Salary related   Support:    payments    operating   subsidies
                                                salary-                expenses
                                                related




           School generated revenues
           The capacity of ELC schools to generate non-government revenues could well have a significant
           impact on the resourcing profile of these schools. The school generated funds serve as discretionary
           funds that are available for allocation by the school leadership (principal, parents and possibly
           teachers). Significant amounts of such discretionary resources may well make a critical difference to
           the performance of a school measured against the National Goals or against other measures of
           educational performance.
           School generated revenues were not included as part of this analysis due to the unavailability of
           consistent and detailed data across each of the states. The only data that was available and collected
           from each of the state jurisdictions was for the amount of school generated revenues held by each
           ELC school in identified bank accounts. This is presented in the table below.
           Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the school generated data presented in this table. First,
           the data represents bank holdings and not expenditure. Therefore it does not tell us how much school
           generated revenue was spent during the year - only the value of these funds at the end of the year. It
           also does not tell us how much was generated during the one school year – the funds may well have
           accumulated in some schools over many years. Second, the data does not tell us how the money is
           likely to be expended. It cannot be assumed that the money is for recurrent cost purposes, as it is
           quite possible that it may be for capital investment purposes such as the building of a new
           gymnasium or auditorium.
           This caveat understood, some tentative analysis is possible. Data shows that ELC primary schools
           had on average $251 per student in bank held savings compared with an ELC secondary school
           average of $590 per student. That is, ELC secondary schools had school generated bank savings that
           were (in per student terms) more than 2.3 times that of the average ELC primary school. This
           suggests a significant differential in the capacity of primary and secondary schools to generate non-
           government sourced finances.
           For primary schools there was a strong and positive correlation between school size and bank held
           savings per student. Primary schools with fewer than 250 students had $214 in school generated
           savings compared with $273 per student for primary schools with enrolments of between 251and 500
           students.
           Differential capacity may well be significantly affected by school size and school type (primary or
           secondary) as suggested by the results of the data from this project. In fact, more detailed qualitative




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                        Final May 05 Page 33
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                   The Base Cost of Schooling


           research is needed to explore the possible dimensions of an important capacity, unevenly distributed
           across schools.

           Table 2.19:        ELC School Generated Revenues, (based on Bank held savings, $ per student, 2001)

           School size (by number of students)             Primary schools ($ per student)            Secondary schools ($ per student)
           250 or less students                                         214                                         Na
           251-500 students                                                273                                         477*
           More than 500 students                                         217*                                          601
           All schools average                                             251                                          590

         * A small number of primary schools (8) and secondary schools (6) were counted as part of the ELC schools even though they were
         marginally outside either the maximum prima




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                Final May 05 Page 34
Resourcing The National Goals                                                            Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related




Chapter 3 Future Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


                                                       Key Findings
      Total National Costs


            •    National resource needs were defined as the product of the average cost of future Additional
                 Resourcing Need (future ARN) per student and the number of students at risk of not achieving
                 benchmarks.
            •    The number of students at risk of not reaching the benchmarks was derived from the Year 5 Literacy
                 and Numeracy Benchmarks for the primary school level, and from a measure of participation in
                 education and training for the secondary level.
            •    The additional expenditure required to meet the future ARN of all government school students is in the
                 vicinity of $2 billion per annum, 2003 prices. This is above and beyond current allocations for programs
                 and interventions to address the needs of poor performing students.
            •    Teacher salary costs were the largest component of these additional costs.
                 Table 3.1: Indicative additional required expenditure for Student Related future
                          ARN (Government students)

                             Students     % at risk       Number of          Average per             Total
                                                          students at        student cost
                                                              risk
                          Primary            12             164,566             $5,905             $971,762,230
                          Secondary          15             162,186             $6,548           $1,061,993,928
                          Total                                                                  $2,033,756,158

      Per Student Costs

            •    For primary students, the per student cost of the future ARN is in the order of $5,905
            •    For secondary students this figure is $6,548.

                 Table 3.2: Cost summary of future ARN by intervention focus
                                                                  Target                               Average
                                    School focused               Group*           Individual          per student
                                      initiatives             initiatives          focused               cost
                   Students                                                       initiatives
                   Primary                $247                     $1017            $4,641                $5,905
                   Secondary              $265                      $979            $5304                 $6,548
            •    Includes Low SES, Indigenous, ESL
            •




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                        Final May 05 Page 35
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                  Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related




3.1         Introduction

            For the purposes of this section, analysis has been restricted to developing an estimate of the costs
            of assisting all students reach the currently reported benchmarks in literacy and numeracy for
            primary school students, and educational participation for secondary students. The section is based
            on a report commissioned by the SRT in 2003. The SRT secretariat provided detailed terms of
            reference specifying a recommended analytical approach and methodology to be adopted by the
            contractors.4 This was largely followed by the contractors with some minor and useful
            modifications. The focus of enquiry for this report was on the cost of the student related future
            Additional Resourcing Need (future ARN) for assisting all students to attain the National Goals for
            Schooling.
            The methodology drew on the assumption that an estimate for the costs of “making a difference” for
            students at risk could be gained by examining the costs of initiatives that have demonstrated
            effectiveness in assisting students at risk. The rationale was that if all disadvantaged students had
            access to effective initiatives or could benefit equally from them, then it may be possible that a
            higher proportion of students would obtain satisfactory educational outcomes than is the case at
            present.
            The methodology used in this study does not imply that the overall level of resources needs to be
            expended in the same way, on the same kinds of interventions or programs as used to arrive at the
            estimated additional resource needs, or even that a programmatic response is what is required in all
            instances. Rather, it should be left to individual schools and school systems to decide how funds can
            best be spent to achieve the desired outcomes taking account of their specific contexts and needs.
            The three types of student related factors which were considered by the study were;
                • Low socio-economic status (low SES),
                • English as Second Language ,
                • Indigenous background.
            Costs were studied as follows:
                • For each category of student related need, an estimate was made of the level of additional
                     resources (above current expenditure) needed to attain the project specified education
                     effectiveness goal.
                • A profile was developed of the type of resources (e.g. teacher time, professional
                     development, administration, materials & equipment) required by schools in order to meet
                     the future additional resourcing needs generated by each category of student related need.

3.2         Student Related Needs – an imperative to act

            Increasing disparity in the distribution of wealth is a national problem that forms part of a global
            trend, and is linked to ongoing economic change. The impact of this phenomenon on education
            needs to be considered urgently and a coherent long-term policy response must be developed to
            mitigate its negative effects.
            In the last decade, per capita growth rates in OECD countries have ceased to converge.5
            Productivity has accelerated in some of the most affluent economies, most notably the United
            States, and slowed down substantially in others.
            The income gap is growing within as well as between countries, particularly in wealthy countries
            such as the US. In a report published in 2003 by the US Congressional Budget Office6, data showed
            an extraordinary growth in income inequality in that country. For example, the pre-tax income of the
            top 1% of households grew by 184% over the 21 years measured (1979-2000). In contrast the

4
  Erebus International (2003, unpublished) Resourcing the National Goals for Schooling - Student Related Cost Drivers, A Report to the MCEETYA
Schools Resourcing Taskforce, December
5
  OECD (2003), “Education at a Glance, OECD Indicators 2003,” p. 170.
6
  The CBO data are regarded as more comprehensive than the Census Bureau data because the CBO measure includes realised capital gains and
estimates tax liabilities. Report in Economic Policy Institute (2003), ‘Economic Snapshots’, September 3



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                 Final May 05 Page 36
Resourcing The National Goals                                                               Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


            lowest fifth of households gained 6.6% pre-tax. A detailed analysis entitled ‘Updated Facts on the
            US Distributions of Earnings, Income and Wealth’ (2002) confirmed that earnings, income and
            wealth are very unequally distributed, and quoted the extraordinary figures that the wealthiest 1
            percent of US households held 1,335 times the wealth of the bottom 40 percent.
            Australia is not immune from this global trend towards increased economic stratification. For
            example, a recent Senate inquiry into poverty has found that the dispersion of earnings and income
            have become more unequal in Australia, especially since the 1980s. Since 1995-96, 47 per cent of
            total increases in income were received by those in the top quintile of the population.7 In other
            words, almost half of the economy-wide increase in income generated since 1995-96 was of no
            benefit to the bottom four-fifths of the population. In 2000, the bottom 50 per cent of the population
            held just 7 per cent of the wealth, whereas the top one per cent held 13 per cent of the wealth and the
            top 5 per cent held 32 per cent of the wealth.8 The Committee’s findings estimate that this
            distribution of wealth will become more concentrated over the next 30 years.
            In Australia, social and financial disadvantage are widespread but concentrated in particular areas of
            the population. Groups at high risk of poverty include:
                 • Indigenous Australians
                 • People who are unemployed
                 • People dependent on government cash benefits
                 • Sole parent families and their children
                 • Families that have three or more children
                 • People earning low wages
                 • People with disabilities or those experiencing a long term illness
                 • Aged people, especially those renting privately
                 • Young people, especially in low income households
                 • Single people on low incomes
                 • People who are homeless
                 • Migrants and refugees.9
            Indigenous Australians, in particular, face a far greater risk of poverty than other Australians and
            there is a 20 year gap in average life expectancy between Indigenous and other Australians.10
            Today, there are 3.6 million Australians, or 21 per cent of households, living on less than $400 a
            week – less than the minimum wage.11 The numbers of Australians living in poverty ranges from 2
            to 3.5 million and over 700 000 children now grow up in homes where neither parent works.12
            Disadvantage is increasingly concentrated and geographic. There is growing evidence of regional
            disparities, with geographic concentrations of great wealth and great disadvantage within areas of all
            major capital cities and between cities and rural areas.

3.2.1       Economic and educational inequities
            In Australia, the 2000 National Report on Schooling (Annual National Report) notes that there has
            been a growing body of research linking high levels of education and training to high levels of
            employment and, conversely, low literacy levels and early school leaving to high risk of
            unemployment.
            This relationship has been identified in a number of recent studies, including the Australian Council
            for Educational Research’s Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth (LSAY). Previous LSAY
            reports explained that lower achievement in literacy and numeracy was associated with lower
            engagement with school, lower participation in Year 12, lower tertiary entrance scores and less

7
  Commonwealth Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, “A hand up not a hand out: Renewing the fight against poverty,” Commonwealth of
Australia, (2004), Report on poverty and financial hardship, p. 48 & 53, March.
8
  Ibid, p. 52.
9
  Ibid, p. 41.
10
   Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRCSSP) (2003), “Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage, Key Indicators
2003, Overview,” November , p. 6.
11
   Commonwealth Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee (2004) op.cit., p. xviii
12
   Ibid, p. xv.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                            Final May 05 Page 37
Resourcing The National Goals                                                               Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


            successful transitions from school. Moreover, a recent LSAY research report on literacy and
            numeracy shows a “strong” link between SES and student achievement, consistent with other
            research in LSAY and other studies.13
            The differential in performance between children from Indigenous and non-Indigenous backgrounds
            is clearly shown in the literacy and numeracy benchmark scores reported in the Annual National
            Reports (summarised in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4). These ANR benchmark results for literacy and
            numeracy are not broken down by socioeconomic status but a survey conducted in 1996 by the then
            Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs clearly indicated that socioeconomic
            background influenced reading results for year 3 and 5 students, with achievement decreasing as the
            socioeconomic status of the student decreased.14 Moreover, a recent study of test scores achieved by
            Australian 14-year-olds in reading comprehension and mathematics between 1975 and 1998 has
            revealed growing differences between Australian schools along socioeconomic lines.15
            This last study found that socioeconomic status, as measured by parents’ occupation, had a
            significant effect on the scores achieved by students. Throughout the 1975-1998 period, students
            whose parents were employed in professional and managerial occupations had the highest average
            scores and students whose parents were production workers or labourers had the lowest. Between
            1975 and 1998, the gap between these two groups of students at an individual level narrowed.
            However, at the same time, the gap in scores widened between schools with high concentrations of
            professional parents and all other schools.
            Students attending a school that has a higher concentration of students from higher socioeconomic
            groups will also achieve (on average) higher scores in both reading and mathematics than students
            attending schools with lower concentrations of students from higher socioeconomic groups. This
            school-level influence has increased since 1975. The study also found that there is a strong
            indication that, as a group, students from homes where English is not the main language spoken
            have improved their achievement both in reading comprehension and in mathematics. While the
            average achievement on tests of reading comprehension for students of a non-English speaking
            background was lower than the average for students from English speaking backgrounds, their
            achievement levels improved significantly over the period and the gap was narrowed substantially.
            However, the widest gaps in average test scores remain between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
            students for both reading comprehension and mathematics.
            Socio economic background has long been shown to be a significant factor in educational
            achievement. Schools with higher levels of low SES students and higher levels of students with
            physical and/or learning disabilities tend to produce achievement outcomes that are lower than
            average.
            Australia needs to improve the equity of its education outcomes. In 2000, the OECD’s Programme
            for International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted a survey of the reading, mathematical and
            scientific literacy of 15 year olds across 32 countries, including Australia. Australia scored above
            the OECD average for all three literacy scales. Only Finland scored significantly higher than
            Australia on the reading literacy scale, while Japan was significantly higher on the mathematical
            literacy scale.
            But beyond these figures lies a more complex reality. If “quality” on the PISA test can be defined
            as the extent to which a country exceeds the OECD average, then “equity” is the extent to which a
            country lies below the OECD average in terms of its spread of scores; ie, the extent to which there is
            variance amongst the students who sit the test (see figure 1).




13
   Rothman, S and McMillan, J, (2003) ‘Influences on Achievement in Literacy and Numeracy’, (LSAY Research Report 36), October .
14
   Literacy Standards in Australia, DETYA, 1996. Quoted in Commonwealth Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, “A hand up not a hand
out: Renewing the fight against poverty,” Report on poverty and financial hardship, Commonwealth of Australia, March 2004, p. 148.
15
   Rothman, S. (April, 2003), “The changing influence of SES on student achievement: recent evidence from Australia.” Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference, Chicago, USA.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                             Final May 05 Page 38
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                       Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


            Figure 3.1: Relationship between Mean and Spread16


                                                       560
                                                                High quality                                                                            High quality
                                                                Low equity                                                          Finland             High equity
                                                       540
                                                                               New Zealand                              C anada
              Mean performance in reading literacy .




                                                                                                       Australia
                                                                                                                          Ireland                            K orea
                                                       520
                                                                                                                                           Japan
                                                                                                United K ingdom              S w eden
                                                                                    B elgium
                                                                                                                Aus tria     Ic eland
                                                                                                  United S tates
                                                       500                                 Norw ay              D enm ark
                                                                                                                    C z ec h R epublic        S pain
                                                                                                 S w itz erland                 Italy
                                                       480               Germ any                          P oland       Hungary
                                                                                                                 Greec e
                                                                                                                 P ortugal
                                                       460



                                                       440                                                Luxem bourg
                                                                Low quality                                                                              Low quality
                                                                Low equity                                                                 Mexic o       High equity
                                                       420
                                                          150                        125                        100                           75                       50
                                                                        V ariation expressed as percentage of average variation across the OE C D



            While Finland, Japan and Korea scored high on both quality and equity, Australia scored above
            average on quality but below average on equity. These results indicate that while quality and equity
            can be achieved together, they are not sufficiently achieved in Australia or in other “above average”
            countries such as New Zealand or the United Kingdom. One commentator has observed that if you
            are going to be born in circumstances of poor family background, then, in terms of your education,
            you would be better to be born in Finland, Korea, Japan or Canada than in Australia, UK, USA, or
            Germany.17

3.2.2       National and individual benefits of increased investment in education
            Investment in education has a high rate of return but it takes a long time to realise. As the Nobel
            Laureate in Economics for 2001, Joseph E. Stiglitz, observed, “the returns to investment in preschool
            education today will not manifest themselves for two decades or more – not the kind of results that
            show up in typical econometric studies.”18 Yet as Stiglitz also emphasises, enhancing education
            opportunities for disadvantaged groups allows countries to tap into vast reservoirs of underused talent
            that is one of the central strategies by which growth can be achieved to the benefit of all.
            Economic research is increasingly finding that the driving force for economic growth is investment in
            “human capital;” ie, the knowledge and skills embodied in workers. For technologies to be
            developed and used effectively, the right skills and competencies must be in place.19
            Investment in education is good for the nation and the individual. Better educated people are more
            likely to be, and remain, employed. The OECD claims that education and earnings are positively
            linked and that in all countries, graduates of tertiary-level education earn substantially more than
                                                                           20
            upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary graduates.        The more skilled the worker, the
            wealthier they will be. Educated people have higher income earning potential and are better able to
            improve the quality of their lives. Post-compulsory education leads to significant improvement in


16
   OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Appendix B1, Table 2.3a, p.253, Table 2.4, p.257.
17
   This is the conclusion drawn by the OECD’s Deputy Director-General of Education, Barry McGraw, in his article, “Providing world-class education:
What can Australia learn from international achievement studies?” Paper delivered at the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER)
conference, Sydney, 14-15 October, 2002.
18
   United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2003), op.cit., p. 80.
19
   OECD (2003), “Education at a Glance, OECD Indicators 2003,” p. 175.
20
   OECD (2003), op. cit., p. 13.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                                                   Final May 05 Page 39
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                      Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


            individual earnings, but it is also of benefit to the nation. Greater labour mobility, lower
            unemployment rates and greater job satisfaction are all directly attributable to education.
            The OECD has estimated that the long-run effect on output of one additional year of education in the
                                                                             21
            adult population is in the order of 6 per cent in the OECD area. Economic growth and other social
            benefits such as better health, lower crime and increased civil engagement, make a compelling case
            for increased investment in education.
            In Australia, the Dusseldorp Skills Forum has examined the consequences of not completing
            education and training for individual young people and the nation as a whole. Their conclusions are
            summarised in the table below:

             Table 3.3: Cost-benefit analysis of Year 12 education for one cohort ($m) 22
                                                            Public Benefits                  Private Benefits                       Total
              Costs (a)                                           625                              625                              1,250
              Benefits (a)                                        550                             1,700                             2,250
              Net Benefit                                         -75                             1,075                             1,000


             In other words, the cost nationally of allowing current levels of school retention to continue will be
             in the order of $1 billion per annum.
             In the United Kingdom, researchers at the University of Hull have also attempted to quantify the
             costs of students not completing schooling.23 The total costs at present values in the United Kingdom
             are estimated to be £7 billion in resource costs and £8 billion in public finance costs. Estimates are
             conservative and only include a limited range of effects.
             Regardless of the mix of inputs, the costs of not responding to the needs of ‘at risk’ students are
             clearly substantial. Within the global knowledge economy, three things have been identified as
             crucial to a nation’s prospects: education; research and development; and information and
             communication technologies.24 OECD data shows that Australia is falling behind most of the major
             developed nations in investing in knowledge.25
             Simply having access to education is not sufficient to make a difference. The quality of the education
             – the degree of mastery of core skills and knowledge it provides – is (at least in part) a function of
             the amount of investment in education. How education is funded has a profound implication for
             access, equity, quality and the long-term prospects of both individuals and the nation.
             Global economic stratification is not a passing trend. It is an established feature of economic
             development. The United Nations believes that wide – and widening – income gaps are cause for
             concern because of their likely negative effects on the pace of development.26 Economic
             stratification is stifling access to education which in turn is hindering further economic
             development. Australia is not immune from this global trend.
             It is therefore a matter of urgent national priority to achieve a coherent long-term funding policy that
             increases education access and quality of learning for future national prosperity and well being.

3.2.3        Methodology
             The starting point for the analytical approach of this study was that the resourcing needs of students
             (and hence schools) do vary significantly if these resourcing needs are defined with reference to the
             attainment of specified educational outcomes for each student.
             The data used to develop the estimate of the cost of student related future ARN was derived from
             educational jurisdictions surveyed to identify Best Practice Initiatives (BPIs) focused on meeting the

21
   Ibid, p. 175.
22
   Applied Economics, (2002). Realising Australia’s Commitment to Young People
23
   Godfrey, C., Hutton, S., Bradshaw, J., Coles, B., Craig, G. and Johnson, J. (2002), Estimating the Cost of Being “Not in Education, Employment or
Training” at age 16-18. Department for Education and Skills Research Report RR346: London.
24
   Considine, M., Marginson, S., Sheehan, P., Kumnick, M., (2001) The Comparative Performance of Australia as a Knowledge Nation, Melbourne,
Monash Centre for Research in International Education
25
   OECD (2001) Education at a Glance
26
   United Nations Development Program (UNDP)(2003),op. cit., p. 46-47.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05 Page 40
Resourcing The National Goals                                                Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           needs of those students most at risk, including indigenous students, students with English as Second
           Language Needs and students from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds. A range of
           initiatives, including allocations, programs and projects were rated according to reported impact,
           with the intention of identifying “best” practices for inclusion in the analysis. Data sought about
           these initiatives included goals, student numbers, outcomes and resources allocated.
           Jurisdictions and systems identified a broad range of BPIs. Initiatives were organised into four
           categories of intervention: whole system, targeted schools, targeted groups and targeted individuals.
           The distinctions drawn were based on the locus of intent of the initiatives. Jurisdictions were
           requested to identify the key resource inputs to each initiative including teacher salaries, other
           salaries, teaching/learning materials, professional development, administration costs and other costs.
           In calculating the cost of future ARN, the costs of whole of system initiatives were excluded as
           these costs were also reflected in the Existing Least Cost (ELC) estimate, and therefore were not a
           reflection of additional expenditure.
           Data was gathered by means of a survey of initiatives deemed by each educational jurisdiction to
           ‘make a difference’ in supporting the achievement of the National Goals by students from targeted
           groups. The survey was discussed at a stakeholders’ teleconference on 7 October 2003 and
           opportunities were provided for feedback and amendment prior to completion and return by 29
           October 2003. The analytical framework and completed surveys were discussed at a meeting of
           senior education officials from State and Territory jurisdictions on 6 November 2003. Data was
           clarified where necessary and requests for additional data were completed by 14 November 2003.

3.2.4      Calculation of Cost Estimates
           In seeking to delineate specific factors that drive costs the study sought to identify initiatives which
           have a demonstrable impact on student outcomes and to identify the costs of these initiatives. There
           were several possible means by which the additional cost of raising educational benchmark
           performance might be estimated. The end point of the study was to be an estimate of average cost
           per student that could then be used to calculate total resource needs. This student related future ARN
           cost estimate would be indicative of the “true” average cost of student related future ARN, which
           would be somewhere within a range around this estimate.
           To arrive at this estimate, it would have been theoretically possible, for example, to examine the
           resource input costs for individual students whose performance between benchmark testing periods
           had been raised to an appropriate level. It would be expected that different inputs, and therefore
           input costs, would be required for different students, but by examining a number of instances a
           representative “average” figure should be derived.
           This method was rejected as impractical for this study for two reasons: first, identification of such
           students was not possible within the timeframe for the study, and second, it was considered unlikely
           that resource inputs for individual students could be accurately identified. Likewise, a methodology
           that surveyed marginal expenditure by schools (similar to that used to identify the Base cost) was
           rejected on feasibility grounds, and because the true cost of programs is not well understood by
           schools. The developmental and administrative support costs of programs, particularly when on-
           costs such as superannuation are considered, are not apparent at the school level. These costs are a
           legitimate component of the true cost of delivery of interventions to any individual student.
           For this reason, the study identified the costs of initiatives at the system level as the most
           appropriate form of data, which was then converted to an annualized per student cost.

3.2.5      Resource Intensity Profile (RIP)
           The experience of many years suggests that there is no single solution to the issue of raising
           educational performance, particularly for those students for whom traditional classroom practices
           have not delivered the same level of outcomes as their peers. Education systems, schools and
           individual teachers have tried many different approaches, with varying degrees of success.
           Examining the range of these practices, identifying what appears to be “best” practices, and then
           identifying the cost of these initiatives, we believe, provides a strong indication of the level of effort
           that would be required to assist all students to achieve their potential.
           Rather than seeking a complete audit of all possible practices, this study sought to gather
           information which was indicative or representative of the range of practices that have been


Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                            Final May 05 Page 41
Resourcing The National Goals                                               Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           demonstrated to be effective and indicative of the range of intensity of intervention required to
           ‘make a difference’ to the educational outcomes of students ‘at risk’ of not achieving the National
           Benchmarks. The study sought responses detailing the full range of initiatives including projects,
           programs and interventions that aim to assist students achieve outcomes consistent with the national
           goals.
           As would be expected, the range of initiatives varied considerably, from initiatives that target a few
           individuals to those that target whole cohorts of students, and those that are highly resource
           intensive to those that require few additional resources. An analytic framework was required to
           organize and “make sense” of this range of data.
           The Resource Intensity Profile (RIP) used in this study to group initiatives into implementation
           categories closely parallels the framework used in the British Government Green Paper, ‘Every
           Child Matters’ (2003). This framework seeks to distinguish between the notions of universal
           services to all children through to specialist services for those most ‘at risk’. It provides an
           appropriate model to describe the intensity of educational interventions based on current practices
           for ‘at risk’ students and supports a breakdown of initiatives by cost categories. This approach
           recognises that there is no single ‘best way’ to address learning needs by including a range of
           interventions that have been used by jurisdictions and that have been demonstrated to be effective.
           The use of the RIP allows appropriate comparisons to be made between costs of programs with
           similar intentions and the range of costs per student for similar kinds of programs. Separation of the
           initiatives by the focus of intervention and the target group for the intervention allows examination
           of comparative cost structures that might otherwise be submerged by simple averaging across all
           programs. Likewise, it allows identification and appropriate consideration of “outliers”, that is,
           programs that differ markedly in their costs, either higher or lower, than similar programs.
           The major assumption underpinning the methodology is that the cost of successful current practice
           provides the best indication for future costs. In seeking to estimate the level of additional resources
           (above current expenditure) needed, the study collated and analysed current interventions deemed to
           be effective. The determination of per student costs for targeted ‘at risk’ groups enabled the
           calculation of indicative National resource needs based upon the number of students who are failing
           to achieve the National Benchmarks.
           The cost calculations for those students performing below the national benchmarks takes into
           account the weakness of educational attainment and/or participation of these students. The costing
           assumes at least some of them are participants of remedial/special intervention type programs from
           which they derive insufficient benefit to meet national standards. No allowance has been made for
           discounting the cost of these interventions which may be ineffective in relation to at least some of
           these students. If a significant efficiency gain was possible in relation to some of these programs this
           would generate a discount on the future oriented additional resourcing need for student related
           issues. Further work in this area can help to quantify the extent of efficiency gains that might be
           realistically pursued and hence the discount factor to be applied on the total cost estimates presented
           in this report.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05 Page 42
Resourcing The National Goals                                               Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           Figure 3.2: Resource Intensity Profile (RIP)




                                                 Targeted               Provisions for
                                                Individuals              Individuals
                                                                         eg Reading
                                                                          Recovery

                                         Targeted                      Provisions for
                                          Groups                     Identified Groups
                                                                        For Example
                                                                        ESL Classes


                          Targeted Schools                       Whole School Provisions
                                                                        For Example
                                                             Priority Schools Funding Program


                                                        Whole System Provisions for All Students
                                                                        For example
                                                    Multicultural Education and Anti-Racism Policies and
                                                                          Practices



3.2.6      Criteria for Inclusion in Analysis
           Information was sought from all educational state jurisdictions and across sectors. Nine jurisdictions
           responded including seven government and two non-government systems. In total, jurisdictions
           identified 163 initiatives deemed to ‘make a difference’. The identification of Best Practice
           Initiatives (BPIs) was based on the professional judgment of a number of senior officers within each
           jurisdiction as demonstrating effectiveness for the targeted groups of students.
           In requesting jurisdictions to identify BPIs, the study sought to distinguish between those initiatives
           which are a part of the universal services provided to all students within an educational jurisdiction,
           those which support specific school communities with significant populations of ‘at risk’ students
           and those that directly target individuals or groups of ‘at risk’ students. In the end, initiatives that
           were focused on a whole system were not included in the calculation of cost of future ARN, as these
           are also a component of the Base cost and not unique to students “at-risk”.
           While jurisdictions were able to identify a broad range of initiatives they regarded as Best Practice,
           they were not always able to supply all the data required to calculate per student costs for these
           initiatives. In addition, although the initiatives were considered to be effective by the jurisdictions,
           they were unable to provide evidence that might substantiate these judgments. This study has
           adopted a conservative approach to the inclusion of BPIs and only included in the analysis those for
           which there was complete data available that would allow calculation of a per student cost, and also
           independent verification of the initiative’s effectiveness.
           The BPIs nominated by the jurisdictions were then classified high (H) or medium (M) or low (L)
           according to perceived impact based upon professional judgments made by each system using the
           following scale:

           1.    The outcomes are inconsistently demonstrated and measurement likely to be less formal than
                formal.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05 Page 43
Resourcing The National Goals                                               Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           2. The initiative has had some impact on the target group although there is only limited evidence to
              demonstrate this.
           3. The initiative has had a high impact on the targeted groups that has been verified by test or other
              systematically gathered data.
           Initiatives rated low (1) were generally excluded from the main analysis.
           It should be noted that even where a total per student cost for the initiative could be calculated,
           jurisdictions were not always able to disaggregate costs of key resource inputs. This is due in some
           instances to the practice of devolved decision making in the determination of key resource inputs
           used at implementation in many jurisdictions. In some instances the only centrally available data
           about program costs is the total budget allocated for the initiative. In other cases, costs for various
           compensatory initiatives are aggregated and schools supplied with a global budget that is used at
           their discretion. In these cases, it is not possible to meaningfully disaggregate resource costs by
           expenditure category. In general, initiatives without full expenditure were excluded from the final
           analysis.
           The initiatives identified are thus representative of the range of initiatives and cost structures
           nationally rather than a complete catalogue of all possible initiatives. The use of average per student
           costs also has the effect of levelling differences between jurisdictions. Further confidence in the
           national applicability of the included initiatives is given by the finding that those initiatives that
           operate in different jurisdictions, such as Reading Recovery, tend to have similar per student cost
           profiles.
           The study also required examination of differential costs that might be expected to be incurred for
           particular groups of students known to be disproportionately represented in the group of students not
           reaching the appropriate benchmark standards. These groups included students from low socio-
           economic status (SES) communities, ESL, and Indigenous students. It is acknowledged that these
           categories are not mutually exclusive - that is, some students may have multiple disadvantages, and
           also that there are students who do not belong to any of these groups who do not achieve the
           benchmark standards.

3.2.7      Criteria for Exclusion from Analysis
           This study only delivered estimates of the cost of future ARN related to a set range of learning
           outcomes for the primary level (literacy and numeracy) and broad participation and attainment for
           secondary schools. While the cost of these inputs goes some way towards addressing resource needs
           in all learning areas, they do not represent the total cost of resource needs to meet all of the
           National Goals.
           The study did not therefore produce an estimate of cost of future ARN that covers the resource
           requirements for the whole of curriculum. Such figures at a national level would only be possible
           with national convergence on curriculum and assessment. At the time of the study, the Performance
           Measurement and Reporting Taskforce (PMRT) of MCEETYA was developing Key Performance
           Measures (KPM) for comparable education attainment within six learning areas from the National
           Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century. This stream of activity may also be useful at a later
           stage in linking school level costs with measures of school effectiveness across a wider range of
           learning areas.
           The study did not attempt to quantify the effects and costs of students with multiple forms of
           disadvantage, and thus may have under-estimated the true level of additional resources needed.
           This study did not seek to gather data related to pre-school education and early intervention
           initiatives, nor did it seek to explore coordinated full service inter-agency initiatives. While a
           significant component of school and systemic effort to increase the performance and participation of
           all students, initiatives relating to vocational education in secondary schools, and special education
           in general and the coordination of services to students and their families were not included in this
           study.
           In summary, 46 Best Practices Initiatives were identified as meeting all of the criteria for inclusion in
           the final analysis from those identified by the nine educational jurisdictions that contributed data
           (Appendix 5). Some of these initiatives were identifiably for primary schools only, some for
           secondary schools only, and some for students in all year levels. These initiatives were supported by



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05 Page 44
Resourcing The National Goals                                                   Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           comprehensive cost breakdowns, specific targets and measurable outcomes. The initiatives included
           in the final analysis were those for which both the full cost of the initiative and the number of
           students targeted was known, as well as strong and independent data on the outcomes achieved by
           the initiative (e.g. through research studies or pre- and post program comparisons of changes in
           assessed outcomes). While some 46 programs were selected for inclusion in the final analysis, the
           data from the remaining initiatives supplied to us was used in supplementary analyses to further test
           the soundness of the final sample and the validity of the methodology. These supplementary
           analyses, outlined below, demonstrate the inclusion of a broader range of initiatives identified by
           jurisdictions would not have significantly altered the conclusions drawn from the sample used.

3.2.8      Comparative Analyses

           Analysis of other initiatives
           To test the accuracy and validity of the findings of this study, consideration was given to other ways
           in which the cost of future ARN per student might be calculated. Also studied was the impact on
           overall results of the inclusion of particular initiatives for which full data was not available. Table
           3.4 lists initiatives nominated by jurisdictions that were not included in the initial analysis, that
           appeared to meet the criteria for inclusion, in that they did allow the calculation of a per student
           cost, but did not have sufficient demonstrated outcomes to rate more highly on the impact
           assessment framework. An additional 27 programs were thus included in this analysis. The same
           methodology for determining standardised unit costs as used in the main study was applied to these
           initiatives.

           Table 3.4: Additional programs included in the comparative analysis

                   Focus of Intervention                                        Initiative
            Whole System                        Girls & Technology in the Secondary School
                                                Literacy Enhancement - Indigenous Students
                                                Literacy Advance Strategy 1
                                                Literacy Advance Strategy 2
                                                Middle Years Reform


            Targeted Schools                    School Resource Package Literacy & Numeracy
                                                Educational Needs Index
                                                Arnhem Assessment Enrichment Program
                                                Success in Numeracy
                                                Family Links
                                                Additional Professional Learning in Literacy and Numeracy
                                                Kid Smart Project
                                                Commonwealth Numeracy and Literacy Program
                                                First Steps
                                                Stepping Out
                                                Indigenous Literacy & Numeracy Consultant
                                                Class Size Reduction Program

            Targeted Groups                     ESL Visiting Teacher
                                                Indigenous Education Strategic Initiative Program (1)
                                                Year 2 Diagnostic Net
                                                ESL General Support
                                                ESL Visiting Teacher
                                                Indigenous Education Strategic Initiative Program (2)
                                                Literacy Enhancement Indigenous
                                                Mobile pre-schools

            Targeted Individuals                Indigenous Language Speaking Student Program (ILSS) 1
                                                Indigenous Language Speaking Student Program (ILSS) 2




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                  Final May 05 Page 45
Resourcing The National Goals                                                       Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related




           Table 3.5 and Table 3.6 show the cost characteristics of the additional programs and how these
           compare with those in the more restricted main analysis. In these tables, costs for primary and
           secondary school students are combined. There is not a consistent pattern in the differences between
           these costs. As with the main analysis, some of the excluded programs were of low cost per student,
           while others where higher cost than the included sample. The greatest difference was with the
           individual targeted programs, where only two additional programs could be identified. Both these
           were ESL for Indigenous Language speaking students, which had a lower per student cost than the
           individually targeted programs such as Reading Recovery included in the main analysis.

           Table 3.5: Cost characteristics of additional programs
                    Focus of Intervention             Av. Cost per       Lowest cost       Median Cost       Highest cost
                                                        Student
            Whole System                                       $219                $11               $17              $753
            Targeted Schools                                   $197                $16               $83              $709
            Targeted Groups                                   $1339               $183              $738            $3,994
            Targeted Individuals                             $2,830              $2,500           $2,830            $3,159


           While the addition of a broader range of initiatives made differences at the different types of
           intervention considered, at the aggregate level at which the cost of future ARN is derived, the
           difference made by the inclusion of these additional programs made very little difference. Table 3.7
           shows that the overall difference that would have been made if these additional programs had been
           included was that the estimated average cost of future ARN would have been reduced by 2 per cent
           or $99 per student.

           Table 3.6: Comparison of average cost per student for additional programs and main analysis
            Focus of Intervention                       Additional programs               Programs in main analysis
                                                      Average cost per student             Average cost per student
            Whole System                                           $219                               $123
            Targeted Schools                                       $197                               $254
            Targeted Groups                                     $1,339                                $997
            Targeted Individuals                                $2,830                              $4,882


           Table 3.7: Effect of adding additional programs to the analysis
             Focus of Intervention                       Main analysis       All programs            Percent difference
                                                         Average cost        Average cost
                                                          per student         per student
             Whole System                                     $123                 $167                 + $44        (36%)
             Targeted Schools                                 $254                 $225                  - $29       (11%)
             Targeted Groups                                  $997                $1098                + $101        (10%)
             Targeted Individuals                           $4,882               $4,711                - $171         (4%)
             Average cost of future ARN per student         $6,133               $6,034                  - $99        (2%)
           The comparative analysis above gives some confidence that the sample of programs included in the
           main analysis are a fair representation of the range of successful initiatives used by jurisdiction to
           address the needs of students at risk of not meeting the National Goal benchmarks. Since the sample
           appears to capture reasonably well the range of costs for such interventions, it would appear that the
           addition of an even wider selection of initiatives would not substantially change the estimate of the
           average cost of future ARN.

           Use of Mean and Median
           To test whether there are any significant differences in the estimate of the cost of future ARN due to
           the method of calculation of an appropriate measure of central tendency, the study compared the



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                   Final May 05 Page 46
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                          Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


             effect of using the median rather than mean as the basis for the estimate. It is generally considered
             that using the median is more appropriate when the distribution of scores is highly skewed or might
             be affected by outlying values that are substantially different from the remainder of the distribution.
             However, the advantage of using the mean score is that it uses all of the information available
             within the data set, which is a major consideration when dealing with relatively small data sets.

             Table 3.8: Difference in cost of future ARN using median or mean of program costs
                                                                                                                      Cost of           Difference
                                                           School              Group             Individual         future ARN              (%)
               Primary                  Mean                247                 1017                4641              $5,905
                                        Median              243                  819                4241              $5,303               10.1%
               Secondary                Mean                265                  979                5304              $6,548
                                        Median              261                  841                4814              $5,916                9.6%


             Table 3.8 shows that using the median of the individual initiative costs within each focus of
             intervention produces a lower estimate than the mean – a difference of about $600 per student per
             annum at both primary and secondary level. This is a difference of about 10 per cent in both cases.
             The consequences of using either method in terms of the calculation of the indicative national
             resource needs are shown in Table 3.9. The indicative resource cost is reduced by $0.2 billion using
             the median cost method.

             Table 3.9: Indicative Mean National Resource Needs (Government Students)
                                                                 Number of
                                           Students              students in              % at risk             Future ARN                  Total
                                                                 population
                                        Primary                    164,566                    12                     $5,905              $971,762,230
               Mean                     Secondary                  162,186                    15                     $6,548            $1,061,993,928
                                        Total                                                                                          $2,033,756,158

                                        Primary                    164,566                    12                     $5,303             $872,693,498
               Median                   Secondary                  162,186                    15                     $5,916             $959,492,376
                                        Total                                                                                          $1,832,185,874



3.2.9        Calculation of Per Student Costs
             The costs for the BPIs were standardised on a per student basis for each targeted population group
             and annualized for programs that were funded for more than one year.27 Jurisdictions were asked to
             provide data for the 2001 school year, where possible, to allow comparability with the calculation of
             the Base cost of schooling. Examination of Appendix 5 highlights two key issues: first, that students
             may be recipients of more than one kind of intervention, and that significant overlaps exist between
             the targeted population groups. Second, some particular groups of students require additional
             resource support that is significantly above the norm. In particular, the needs of newly arrived
             students with refugee status are considerably greater than other LBOTE students.
             The costs of Whole System Initiatives were calculated, but were not included in the calculation of
             the cost of future ARN for each targeted population group. Whole of System intervention costs were
             not included in the calculation of the estimated cost of future ARN because they were reflected as a
             component of the Base cost calculation and therefore not part of the additional resource cost.
             The exposure of students from the identified at-risk populations to a range of interventions
             acknowledges a multi-faceted approach rather than a single ‘best way’ to address educational
             disadvantage. The intention of this analysis was to show the additional resource costs that might be

27
  The cost per student was calculated simply by dividing the number of students targeted for the initiative. In doing so, it is recognised that in practice
not all students will have access to the experience of the initiative, the same quality of experience, or receive equal benefit from the experience.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                           Final May 05 Page 47
Resourcing The National Goals                                               Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           expected. For this reason, the cost of future ARN calculation took into account the additive effect of
           the different kinds of targeted initiatives. In other words, it should be expected that some students at
           risk or who have not achieved the National Goal benchmarks would require assistance from more
           than one level of intervention throughout their school life.
           The average cost of future ARN for each level of schooling was calculated by first identifying all of
           the initiatives within each focus of intervention, that is by including initiatives that targeted low SES
           students, indigenous students and ESL students in the whole school system, in school focused
           interventions, targeted groups, and individual focused interventions. The average of these program
           costs within each kind of intervention was then calculated. The average cost for school-focused
           interventions, targeted group interventions and individual focused interventions was then aggregated.
           System level costs were excluded, as these were also counted as part of the Base cost. The reason for
           aggregating in this way was that it provided the broadest range of initiatives possible within each
           category for analysis. When finer distinctions were made (ie, identifying target groups within each
           category of intervention before aggregating the cost of future ARN), the number of programs in each
           category was small and ran the risk of distorting the average by inclusion of unlike programs.
           Aggregating initiatives within types of intervention was also justified by the assumption that these
           were simply representative of the range of costs for successful interventions, regardless of whom
           they were initially targeted towards.

3.3        Findings

           Average Cost of future ARN for Primary and Secondary students
           The cost of future ARN for primary and secondary schooling was derived by aggregating the
           average per student cost of initiatives for the targeted population groups at each focus of
           intervention. Table 3.10 below summarises the cost of future ARN, rounded to the nearest dollar per
           student.

           Table 3.10: Student Related future ARN costs by focus of intervention
                                School focused    Target Group      Individual focused      Average cost of future
            Students              initiatives      initiatives           initiatives           ARN per student
            Primary                     $247            $1017           $4,641                $5,905
            Secondary                   $265             $979            $5304                $6,548


           Table 3.10 shows that the average cost for interventions targeted towards individual students are by
           far the most expensive kind of intervention. They are also often the most effective. The total cost of
           future Additional Resourcing Need is additive, since students need to receive (and schools and
           systems need to provide) a range of interventions. Taking the average of the range of costs for
           initiatives targeting various different categories of student provides the best overall estimate of the
           future Additional Resourcing Need of students not attaining the National Goal benchmarks. For
           primary students, this cost of future ARN is in the order of $5,905 and for secondary students
           $6,548. There is not a great difference between these average costs. Indicative Additional Resource
           Need to meet the National Goal Benchmarks
           The costs of future ARN shown in Table 3.10 provide the basis for calculating the indicative national
           resource needs for meeting the National Goal benchmarks. National resource needs were defined as
           the product of the average cost of future ARN and the number of students at risk of not achieving
           their educational potential.
           How many students are “at risk” nationally is a matter of debate. National educational performance
           measurement in Australia, in a form that allows comparability between jurisdictions to be reported,
           is still in an early stage of development. Many would argue that the currently available benchmark
           measures for literacy and numeracy are an inadequate expression of the intention of the National
           Goals, which are much broader in scope. There is also a considerable body of opinion that the
           benchmarks are set too low. There are also many students in primary schools who only just reach the
           benchmarks at the testing points that may also be described as being “at risk”. For secondary school
           students, there is not yet any satisfactory nationally comparable outcome measure that can be used to



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05 Page 48
Resourcing The National Goals                                              Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           describe the quality of learning for students at this level. The estimate of the demand for additional
           resourcing is therefore based on proxy measures, and may underestimate the real level of demand.
           This study attempted to address this issue of the difficulty of specifying the exact number of students
           “at-risk” by calculating indicative resource needs based on the upper and lower limits of reasonably
           derived estimates of the number of students not attaining the benchmarks. The final estimate of the
           indicative resource needs was based on the mid-point of this range within which the additional
           resources needed to overcome student disadvantage might be expected to fall.

           Quantifying ‘at risk’ primary school students
           For primary students, the demand for resources was calculated by multiplying the average cost of
           future ARN (ie, the median cost for the targeted groups) by the percentage of students failing to
           achieve the national benchmarks in Literacy and Numeracy. The percentage of Year 5 primary
           students who failed to achieve the national benchmarks in Literacy in 2000 was 12.6%. The
           percentage of Year 5 primary students who failed to achieve the national benchmarks in Numeracy
           in 2000 was 10.4%. The percentage of those primary students ‘at risk’ of not achieving the national
           benchmarks is therefore likely to include somewhere between ten and fifteen per cent of the
           population.

           Table 3.11: Range of estimates for primary students ‘at risk’

                       Lower range                        Mid-range                        Upper range

                           10%                               12%                                15%


           Table 3.12: Percentage of students achieving the numeracy benchmark, by gender, years 3 and 5,
                     Australia, 2000
                          Cohort                        Male Students                    Female Students
                          Year 3                          92.7±2.1                          92.8±2.1
                          Year 5                          89.4±1.7                          89.8±1.8


           As indicated in Figure 3.3and Figure 3.4 below, there are substantial differences between the
           achievement of numeracy benchmarks by Indigenous students and all students.

           Figure 3.3: Percentage of year 3 students achieving the numeracy benchmark, by sub-group, Australia,
                      2000




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                          Final May 05 Page 49
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                    Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


               Figure 3.4: Percentage of year 5 students achieving the numeracy benchmark, by sub-group, Australia,
                          2000




               As indicated in Figure 3.5, there were no measurable differences between the achievement of year 3
               reading benchmarks by boys and girls in both 1999 and 2000. However, there was some evidence of
               potential differences between the achievement of the year 5 reading benchmarks between boys and
               girls in both 1999 and 2000.
               Table 3.13: Percentage of students achieving the reading benchmark, Australia, years 3 and 5,
               1999, 2000

                                 Year                                     Year 3                                      Year 5
                                 1999                                    89.7±2.5                                    85.6±2.0
                                 2000                                    92.5±2.2                                    87.4±2.1


               The relative performance of Indigenous students is summarised in Table 3.14 and Figure 3.5 and
               Figure 3.6 where the gap between the performance of Indigenous students and all students is clearly
               observable. While there are no substantive changes in relative performance between 1999 and 2000,
               there is little in these results to indicate improvement for Indigenous students.28

               Table 3.14: Percentage of Indigenous students achieving the reading benchmark, Australia, years 3 and
                          5, 1999 and 2000
                                Cohort                              Indigenous students                             All students
                              Year 3, 1999                                73.4±6.2                                    89.7±2.5
                              Year 3, 2000                                76.9±6.5                                    92.5±2.2
                              Year 5, 1999                                58.7±4.2                                    85.6±2.0
                              Year 5, 2000                                62.0±4.8                                    87.4±2.1




28
     Note: The source of data for Tables 2-12 and Figures 2-6 is the MCEETYA (2001) National Report on Schooling (Annual National Report)



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                   Final May 05 Page 50
Resourcing The National Goals                                                Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           Figure 3.5: Percentage of year 3 students achieving the reading benchmark, by sub-group, Australia,
                      2000




           Figure 3.6: Percentage of year 5 students achieving the reading benchmark, by sub-group, Australia,
                      2000




           Quantifying ‘at risk’ secondary school students
           At the secondary school level, a proxy indicator of school achievement is provided by a measure of
           educational completion. The meaning of “school completion” is not as clear cut as might be
           supposed, particularly as the line between school and vocational education and training has become
           blurred in recent years. Year 12 completion by no means automatically equates with matriculation or
           qualification for tertiary study. Likewise, students who leave school before Year 12, but who enter
           and complete a vocational qualification, for example through a TAFE college, cannot be described as
           “educational failures”. In part to address these complexities, in 2000, MCEETYA endorsed the
           following measures of 15-24 year olds’ education/training participation and attainment:
                • the proportion of 15-24 year olds, by single year of age, in full-time education or training,
                     in full-time work, or in both part-time work and part-time education or training
                • the percentage of 18 year olds who have completed Year 12 successfully or attained a
                     qualification at AQF Level 2 or above and the percentage of 24 year olds who have
                     completed a post secondary qualification at AQF Level 3 or above.
           The 2001 Annual National Report on Schooling used the term “full-time participation rate” to
           describe the endorsed key performance measure of participation. The full-time participation rate is
           the proportion of the population, at specific ages, that is in full-time education or training, or in full-
           time work, or in both part-time education or training and part-time work. The participation rate for
           18-year-olds is markedly lower than the rate for 15-year-olds, largely due to people either leaving




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                            Final May 05 Page 51
Resourcing The National Goals                                                      Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           school early after the compulsory years or completing year 12 (see Figure 3.7 and Table 3.17-Table
           3.19).
           This pattern is more pronounced for females than males, with the full-time participation rate for
           female 15-year-olds being 99 per cent, whereas the participation rate for 24-year-old females is 70
           per cent. This compares to 97 per cent for 15-year-old males lowering to 83 per cent at 24 years of
           age.

           Figure 3.7: Full-time participation rates, Australia, May 2000




                    Source: ABS Cat. No 6227.0 Survey of Education and Work (unpublished data), May 2000


           The pattern of a marked lowering of the level of participation between the ages of 15 and 19 was
           evident to a greater extent for Indigenous young people than for their non-Indigenous counterparts.
           The following Table, using 2001 ABS Census data, summarises comparative data for non-
           Indigenous and Indigenous Australians.

           Table 3.15: Education and labour market status of teenagers aged 15 to 19 years old, Australia, 2001
                                % Full-time       % Full-time        % Part-time             %                 Total
                 2001           education            work            work and/or        Unemployed           population
            15-19 year olds                                           education         & not in the
                                                                                        labour force
                                                         Non-Indigenous
                Male               66.2               15.8            6.1    10.7
               Female              72.9                9.6            7.3     9.4
               TOTAL               69.5               12.7            6.7    10.0                             1,235,580
                                  TOTAL NON-INDIGENOUS TEENAGERS AT RISK, % 16.7
                                                      Indigenous
                Male               42.0          10.6            10.7        34.7
               Female              46.8           6.6             9.1        36.1
               TOTAL               44.4           8.6             9.9        35.4                              42,273
                                     TOTAL INDIGENOUS TEENAGERS AT R ISK, % 45.3
                                          TOTAL TEENAGERS AT R ISK, % 17.2
           NB. Excludes 47,411 people whose Indigenous status is not known.
           Source: Dusseldorp Skills Forum (2001) How Are Our Young People Faring (2001)


           Nearly 70 per cent of non-Indigenous teenagers are still at school compared to around 45 per cent of
           Indigenous teenagers. Critically, over 35 per cent of Indigenous teenagers are either unemployed or
           not participating in the labour force, compared with 10 per cent of non-Indigenous teenagers
           (Dusseldorp Skills Forum, 2001).
           Table 3.16 below shows trends in school completion rates. As noted above, school completion rates
           are not in and of themselves an indication of educational “success”, and need to be viewed from the



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                  Final May 05 Page 52
Resourcing The National Goals                                                              Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           context of total educational participation (see Table 3.17). They do indicate, however, that more than
           30 per cent of all Year 12 students will have restricted access to qualifications that are associated
           with higher lifetime earnings and contribution to national productivity.

           Table 3.16: Estimated Year 12 completion rates (%)
                       Year                            Male                           Female                         Total
                       1994                             63                              74                            68
                       1995                             61                              73                            67
                       1996                             60                              72                            65
                       1997                             58                              71                            64
                       1998                             60                              72                            66
                       1999                             61                              74                            67
                       2000                             61                              74                            67


           Both Table 3.16, and the total figures for the 15-19 year old population not in education and training
           show that in excess of 30% of the secondary cohort do not complete secondary schooling. If a
           national target completion rate of 90% for secondary schooling was adopted, then approximately
           20% of the student cohort may be considered an upper estimate of the secondary level students to be
           ‘at risk’.

           Table 3.17: Estimated Year 12 participation rates (%)
                                      IN FULL-TIME EDUCATION                               NOT IN FULL-TIME EDUCATION
                              Full-   Part-      Un-          Not in the   Sub-    Full-   Part-time     Un-        Not in the   Sub-
                              time    time     employed        labour      Total   time      work      employed      labour      Total
                              work    work                      force              work                               force
             Males            0.4     20.2       5.4            40.5       66.4    19.8        5.7       4.6           3.4       33.6
             Females          0.2     29.9       5.0            36.7       71.7    11.0        8.5       4.2           4.6       28.3
             Total            0.3     24.9       5.2            38.6       69.0    15.5        7.0       4.4           4.0       31.0
         Source: ABS, Labour Force Australia, May 2002. Catalogue No. 6203.0


           Figure 3.8 below provides data for a proxy measure of attainment from the ABS Survey of
           Education and Work. This measure is the percentage of 19-year-olds who have completed year 12 or
           obtained any post-school qualification. This measure provides some indication of the number of
           young people within a particular cohort, however, it does not provide insight into the quality of that
           experience. It is, nonetheless, a reasonably accurate and reliable reflection of secondary schooling
           outcomes.

           Figure 3.8: Percentage of 19-year-olds who have completed year 12 or obtained any post-school
                      qualification, by gender, Australia, May 2000




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                            Final May 05 Page 53
Resourcing The National Goals                                                     Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


                    Source: ABS Cat. No 6227.0 Survey of Education and Work (unpublished data), May 2000


           Table 3.18: Educational attainment, by age group and level of qualification, Australia, 1997–2000 (per
                      cent)
                          19-year-olds who have completed year 12 or obtained any post-school qualification
                                      1997              1998                1999                       2000
            Males                     65.6              65.8                73.6                       69.8
            Females                   79.5              79.8                79.8                       81.6
            Persons                   72.4              72.7                76.6                       75.5


           Of the 1,757,000 students in Vocational Education and Training, some 11.8% or 207,326 were 15-24
           year olds. Assuming 50% of these were 15-19 year olds then a further 103,663 15-19 year olds were
           engaged in Vocational Education and Training. Participation data from the Australian Bureau of
           Statistics indicate that 22.8% of 15-19 year old students were not participating in education in 2001.
           For this analysis, the resource needs of secondary students, using the proxy measure of participation
           in education and training, was estimated as being in the order of 15 per cent of the cohort, and most
           likely within a range of ten to twenty percent of the population cohort. Based on the available data
           for secondary schooling the following range of estimates is suggested for quantifying ‘at risk’
           students.

           Table 3.19: Range of estimates for secondary students ‘at risk’
                       Lower range                           Mid-range                            Upper range
                          10%                                  15%                                   20%


3.3.1      Calculation of indicative resource needs
           The table below summarizes these calculations, firstly for government students, and secondly for all
           students. Accurate figures for the proportion of students in non-government schools not meeting the
           National Goal benchmarks are not available.

           Table 3.20: Range of indicative resource needs (Government school students)
                                                      Lower range               Mid-range                  Upper range
            Primary students
                                                          10%                      12%                        15%
            Mean per student cost ($5,905)
            No. of students at risk                     137,138                  164,566                    205,707
            Indicative resource needs                 $809,799,890             $971,762,230             $1,214,699,835

            Secondary Students
                                                          10%                      15%                        20%
            Mean per student cost ($6,548)
            No. of students at risk                     108,124                   162,186                   216249
            Indicative resource needs                 $707,995,952            $1,061,993,928            $1,415,998,452

            Total resource needs                     $1,517,795,842           $2,033,756,158            $2,630,698,287


           Data in relation to the population sizes in Table 3.19 is derived from the ABS Schools collection
           (Publication No 4221.0) for 2001. The size of the total Primary cohort in 2001 was 1,896,323
           including students in Pre-Primary grades and excluding students in ungraded primary classes. The
           number of students in Government schools in 2001 was 1,371,382. For the Secondary Students, the
           estimate of indicative resource needs is based on the number of students who would be eligible for
           secondary schooling in 2001 rather than actual enrolments (excluding students in ungraded classes
           and special schools).
           Those eligible for enrolment in Years 11 and 12 was estimated from the size of the entering Year 7
           cohorts for that Year (ie. The Year 12 eligible cohort was the Year 7 cohort of 1996). It is an



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                 Final May 05 Page 54
Resourcing The National Goals                                                    Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related


           estimate because the entering cohort number is not adjusted to take account of student deaths,
           students migrating in and out of Australia or students who repeat a Year or otherwise have disrupted
           schooling.
           In determining the number of students at risk, the population was defined as all of the students
           enrolled in Years 7-10 (on the basis that retention is close to 100 per cent in those Years), plus 90 per
           cent of the secondary eligible students in Years 11 and 12 (based on the goal of 90 per cent school
           completion accepted by MCEETYA).
           The government “share” of the total indicative resource needs was calculated as 78 per cent of the
           total, to take account of the fact that retention is lower in government schools than non-government
           schools (proportion of government: non-government non-retained population = .78).

           Table 3.21: Apparent Retention Rates - Government and Non-Government Schools
                                                                   Year 10            Year 12                Apparent
                                                                Enrolment 1999     Enrolment 2001         Retention Rates
            Government Schools                                      162928             114953                   .70
            Non-Government Schools                                   86599              73157                   .84
            Govt. proportion of total non-retained population                                                   .78

3.3.2      Key Resource Inputs
           The study examined the various elements that comprise the average cost of future Additional
           Resourcing Need. The survey of jurisdictions asked for a disaggregation of the cost of initiatives by
           various categories of expense, including teacher salaries, other salaries, professional development
           costs, teaching and learning materials, administration costs, and other costs. These details were not
           available for all initiatives (38 programs were included in this analysis). For those initiatives for
           which data was available, an analysis was undertaken. The results of this analysis are summarised in
           Table 3.22. Note that because the set of initiatives included in this analysis was different from that
           used in the main analysis (because disaggregated costs were not available for all initiatives), the
           estimated total cost of future ARN reported in Table 3.20 for the disaggregated costs is slightly
           different from that reported from the main analysis. However, the total estimated cost of future ARN
           derived from this analysis is within 5 per cent of the estimate derived from the main analysis.
           The tables below show teacher salaries to be the key resource input for school focused and targeted
           individual initiatives. However, for targeted group initiatives the emphasis shifts to non-teacher
           salaries. Individualized programs, such as Reading Recovery, are a common approach adopted by
           most jurisdictions, and are also the most expensive. They may however, be most effective in the long
           run, and investment in early intervention may prevent the need for later expenditure. There is
           evidence that the investment in Intensive English classes, although among the most expensive kinds
           of intervention, reaps considerable rewards later. Students from language backgrounds other than
           English, once they have overcome their initial English-language deficiency, as a group perform
           higher on average than English speaking students. The cost to individuals, and to the nation, of
           allowing school failure to remain institutionalized has been well documented in many countries,
           including Australia.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                Final May 05 Page 55
Resourcing The National Goals                                                            Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related




           Table 3.22: Proportion of total costs by Key Resource Inputs (%)

                                                              Key Resource Inputs, proportion of total future ARN expenditure (%)
                                                              Teacher    Other      Professional         T/L
               Initiative                                     Salaries Salaries Development           Materials    Admin      Other
               School focused initiatives
               Low SES                                               72     2             10                   10             1         4
               Indigenous                                            70     0             21                   7              2         0
               ESL                                                          99                                                          1
               Targeted group initiatives
               Low SES                                            3.8      56.9           3.0                  11.4         17.8       7.2
               Indigenous                                         6.0      88.7           0.9                  0.6           0         3.8
               ESL                                               98.1      1.1             0                    0           0.4        0.5
               Targeted individual initiatives
               Low SES                                           96.6      0.1            2.6                  0.1          0.4        0.4
               Indigenous                                        76.6      13.3           6.6                  3.3          1.8        2.8
               ESL                                               77.2      3.1            0.3                  1.4          17.3       0.7

           The distribution of key inputs is further illustrated in the figures below. These figures again
           demonstrate that teacher salaries are by far the major component of the cost of future ARN. Analysis
           of interventions shows that those targeting individual students comprise the major component of the
           student related cost of future Additional Resourcing Need.

           Figure 3.9: Percentage Distribution of Key Student Related future ARN Cost Inputs



                                                          Other, 8


                                              Admin., 8


                                  T/L Materials, 3


                                         P.D., 7




                                                                                        Teacher Salaries, 60

                                Other Salaries, 14




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                Final May 05 Page 56
Resourcing The National Goals                                                      Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related



           Figure 3.10: Distribution of Student Related future ARN costs by focus of intervention


                                                          System level
                                                             School level



                                                                            Group l evel




                                   Indivi dual level




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                  Final May 05 Page 57
Resourcing The National Goals Project                                                            Additional Resourcing Need: School Related




Chapter 4 School Related Resourcing Need: Current Funding



                         Key Findings – Funding for School Related Resourcing Needs

                          •     Current funding for specific school-related resourcing needs (size and remoteness) were estimated
                                to be in the order of $590 million
                          •     This includes both direct and indirect costs for government schools
                          •     Additional costs per non-metropolitan student (over metropolitan levels) were:
                                      o    Approximately $650 p.a. for primary students, and
                                      o    Approximately $870 p.a. for secondary students
                          •     The table below provides a breakdown of the school related additional resourcing needs in non-
                                metropolitan areas:



                                 Table 4.1: Total Cost of School Related Factors, Government Schools, 2001

                                                                         Primary        Secondary         Total
                                    Total direct costs                   $76,321,975    $40,615,434       $116,937,410
                                    Total indirect costs                 $245,573,857   $226,537,203      $472,111,060
                                    Total costs                          $321,895,832   $267,152,637.4    $589,048,470
                                    Additional cost per non-             $648.29        $870.78           $733.26
                                    metropolitan student



4.1             Introduction

                This section analyses the effect that location and size have on the cost of schooling. Both direct and
                indirect costs were examined for government schools29.
                For this study, direct costs (school related) were defined as specific purpose financial allocations
                made by each school, system relating to the location of the school. For example transport and freight
                costs, which may be significantly higher in non-metropolitan areas. Direct costs were divided into
                three main categories:
                     • Non-staff costs
                     • Special Programs
                     • Distance Education
                Indirect costs relate to school size, and were those costs associated with the diseconomies of scale of
                many of the considerably smaller schools in non-metropolitan locations. Indirect costs comprised
                only one category - the increased costs of having lower teacher-student ratios in non-metropolitan
                schools.
                Salary costs associated with location, such as locality allowances designed to attract teachers to non-
                metropolitan schools, were included in the indirect costs, as this calculation includes all aspects of
                teacher salaries.


29
     Unless otherwise stated all references are to government schools.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                              Final May 05, Page 58
Resourcing The National Goals Project                                                                 Additional Resourcing Need: School Related




             The analysis did not provide an estimate of future costs, but only a snap-shot of additional school-
             related costs in a given year, 2001.
             It should be noted that additional costs for non-metropolitan students are disproportionately incurred
             by government school systems - the only sector required by law to provide education services
             outside metropolitan areas.

4.2          Methodology

             Data was obtained from States and Territories on 2001 subsidies for non-metropolitan schools,30
             according to categories established by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The Commonwealth
             provided data on levels of Commonwealth support for non-metropolitan schools. Both sources of
             data were analysed in terms of direct and indirect costs. Salient aspects of the methodology include
             the following:
                  • All financial, school and student data were supplied by State systems.
                  • DEST supplied data related to Commonwealth funded programs.
                  • Distance education costs were measured and presented but not included as part of costs
                       because of the difficulty, within the time-frame available, of identifying aspects of
                       distance education costs “additional” to standard schooling as measured in Stage 1 of this
                       study.
                  • Different financial reporting formats meant that direct staff costs could not be
                       disaggregated from indirect staff costs in all States. Hence all staff-related expenses were
                       considered as part of indirect costs.
                  • Direct salary costs associated with location, such as locality allowances designed to attract
                       teachers to non-metropolitan schools, were included in the indirect calculation, along with
                       all other aspects of teacher salaries.
                  • Indirect costs, related to school size, were measured by the proportionate difference
                       between metropolitan and non-metropolitan teacher salaries, on a per student basis. This
                       constitutes a real additional cost to school systems, and is related to the smaller size of non-
                       metropolitan schools.
             The analysis did not provide an estimate of future costs, but rather a snap-shot of additional school-
             related costs in 2001. Changing cost structures were not predicted for the short term future, since:
                  • Levels of educational adequacy are crucial in predicting the costs of rectifying any
                       inadequacy; however this was not able to be measured in non-metropolitan areas in the
                       time frame available.
                  • It was not possible to model future population change in non-metropolitan areas in the time
                       frame available.
             There is no suggestion that non-metropolitan schools are adequately funded simply because current
             subsidies for school size and location are considered adequate. An individual school’s student
             profile will largely determine that school’s level of relative need. The student profile of a school will
             create cost pressures separate and different to those imposed by school size and location.

4.3          Profile of Schools, by location and size

             Australia is usually thought of as highly urbanised with a large percentage of the population living
             along a thin strip of the East Coast. It may therefore be surprising to note that more than 800,000
             students attend government schools in non-metropolitan locations scattered widely across the
             continent. These non-metropolitan students attend a total of 2,459 government primary schools and

30
  In this paper the term non-metropolitan incorporates all areas outside major metropolitan areas including locations that might also be termed rural and
remote. Each state/territory was asked to use its own methodology for determining metropolitan and non-metropolitan locations. For example, in
NSW, Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong make up metropolitan areas and the remainder of the state is non-metropolitan. In Queensland, metropolitan
includes Brisbane, Logan City, Ipswich City, Gold Coast City, Redlands Shire, Redcliffe Shire local government areas and Thuringowa local
government area. All areas outside this are regarded as non-metropolitan.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                       Final May 05, Page 59
Resourcing The National Goals Project                                                                    Additional Resourcing Need: School Related




           780 secondary schools. These schools are significantly smaller than their metropolitan counterparts
           with approximately 20% of non-metropolitan primary schools having fewer than 30 students and
           approximately 30% of non-metropolitan secondary schools catering for fewer than 100 students.
           Comparisons between school size in metropolitan and non-metropolitan primary and secondary
           schools are shown in the following figures.

           Figure 4.1: Proportion of Primary Schools by Size of School
               Proportion of total primary




                                                   45%
                                                   40%
                                                   35%
                                                   30%
                        schools




                                                   25%                                                                             Metro
                                                   20%                                                                             Non-metro
                                                   15%
                                                   10%
                                                    5%
                                                    0%
                                                           0-29      30-59      60-99      100-199    200-349     350 plus
                                                         students   students   students    students   students    students
                                                                                  Size of school




           Figure 4.2: Proportion of Secondary Schools by Size of School



                                                   50%
                   Proportion of total secondary




                                                   45%
                                                   40%
                                                   35%
                             schools




                                                   30%                                                                             Metro
                                                   25%
                                                   20%                                                                             Non-metro
                                                   15%
                                                   10%
                                                    5%
                                                    0%
                                                           0-99     100-149    150-199     200-499    500-799       800 or
                                                         students   students   students    students   students      above
                                                                                                                   students
                                                                                  Size of school



           While not all non-metropolitan schools are small, there are more students in non-metropolitan areas
           who attend small schools as compared to their metropolitan counterparts. For example, the table
           below shows that 67% of metropolitan primary school students attend schools which have more than
           350 students, while only 49% of non-metropolitan primary school students attend schools of similar
           size. The figures are similar for secondary schools (67% and 46% respectively). Likewise, the
           proportion of students attending very small schools in non-metropolitan areas is significantly greater
           than the proportion of students attending similar sized schools in metropolitan areas.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                        Final May 05, Page 60
Resourcing The National Goals Project                                                                     Additional Resourcing Need: School Related




                Figure 4.3: Primary School Students by School Size, Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan, 2001


                                          600,000

                                          500,000
                Number of students




                                          400,000
                                                                                                                                             Metro
                                          300,000
                                                                                                                                             Non metro

                                          200,000

                                          100,000

                                               0
                                                       0-29         30-59      60-99       100-199       200-349         350 plus
                                                                                   School size




                Figure 4.4: Secondary School Students by School Size, Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan, 2001


                                          200,000
                                          180,000
                     Number of students




                                          160,000
                                          140,000
                                          120,000
                                                                                                                                             Metro
                                          100,000
                                                                                                                                             Non metro
                                           80,000
                                           60,000
                                           40,000
                                           20,000
                                                0
                                                    0-99 students   100-149    150-199     200-499       500-799       800 or above
                                                                    students   students    students      students        students

                                                                                   School size



                There are, as would be expected, significant differences in the proportion of metropolitan and non-
                metropolitan schools between States and Territories.31 For example, 74% of primary schools in the
                Northern Territory, 67% in Tasmania and 60% in Queensland are in non-metropolitan locations,
                whereas the proportion of non-metropolitan primary schools is lower in NSW, Victoria, South
                Australia and Western Australia (51%, 51%, 50% and 48% respectively).




31
     The entire school population of the ACT is considered to be metropolitan and therefore has not been included in the analysis of this report.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                           Final May 05, Page 61
Resourcing The National Goals Project                                                                Additional Resourcing Need: School Related




4.4         Direct Cost Factors (Location related)



                                                Key Findings - Direct Cost Factors

                           Total Direct Costs
                                 • Total direct costs for non-metropolitan schools amounted to $177.3M, comprising:

                           Non-Staff Costs
                                • For Primary Schools, this amounted to $38.8M
                                • For Secondary schools, the cost was $24.1M
                                • The total for both was $62.9M (2001)
                                • This represents a per student average for both groups of $78 p.a.

                           Special Programs
                                • For Primary Schools, this amounted to $37.5M
                                • For Secondary schools, the cost was $16.5M
                                • The total for both was $54M (2001)

                           Distance Education
                                 • The total for both Primary and Secondary was $60.4M (2001)




            Direct cost factors are those factors that include a direct financial allocation and can be directly
            attributed to the location of the school.32 For this study, direct costs included:
                  • non-staff costs
                  • the cost of any specifically targeted programs such as the Country Areas Program (CAP),
                      and
                  • Distance Education.
            The total direct cost of non-metropolitan schools was $177,337,556 comprising:
                • $76,321,975 for primary schools;
                • $40,615,435 for secondary schools; and
                • $60,400,146 spent over both primary and secondary schools via Distance Education.

            Table 4.2: Direct Costs for Non-metropolitan Areas*, 2001
              Direct Cost Factor               Primary                        Secondary                             Total
              Non-staff costs                $38,788,813                     $24,077,702                         $62,866,515
              Special programs               $37,533,163                     $16,537,732                         $54,070,895
              Total cost                    $76,321,976.00                  $40,615,434.00                     $116,937,410.00
              Per capita cost                    $154                            $132                               $145
          * This does not include approximately $60 million of expenditure spread across primary and secondary levels for Distance Education. This is
          not included here because the expenditure is often incurred outside of school delstructures and cnot all incurred at individual school level.

            As noted earlier, these amounts do not include direct staff costs, which are captured in the indirect
            costs outlined below. Direct costs comprised the following three components:




32
  The Commonwealth Grants Commission uses the term dispersion factors to describe these additional costs associated with services to dispersed
populations.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                      Final May 05, Page 62
Resourcing The National Goals Project                                                                   Additional Resourcing Need: School Related




4.5          Direct non-staff costs

             Non-staff costs include those additional costs to the system that arise due to the remote location of a
             school. For example, schools might be given additional money in their budgets for the following:
                 • telephone calls;
                 • freight costs;
                 • travel costs (excluding those travel expenses paid directly to staff); and
                 • more relief days for professional development.
             The total cost of $62.9 million dollars per annum33 ($38.8M for Primary students and $24.1M for
             Secondary students) represents a per student average of $78 p.a. for both primary and secondary
             non-metropolitan students.

4.6          Special Programs

             Special programs include all monies allocated directly to assist non-metropolitan students through
             specifically targeted programs. For example, the Commonwealth Government Country Areas
             Program (CAP) provides annual supplementary funding to government and non-government
             education authorities in each State and Territory to assist schools in “rural and isolated areas”.
             In 2001 approximately $37.5 million was spent on special programs for primary schools and $16.5
             million for secondary schools - a total of $54 million in non-metropolitan locations.34

4.7          Distance Education

             Each jurisdiction provides distance education options for students who are unable to access school or
             who require access to a wider range of subjects than is available in the school they attend.
             Geographic isolation is a major reason why students access distance education although not the only
             reason. Other reasons include:
                  • sickness;
                  • travel commitments;
                  • artistic or sporting commitments; and
                  • access to subjects unavailable at the students’ current school.
             States and Territories were unable to provide a detailed analysis of the students who accessed
             distance education. In order to estimate the total direct costs of location an assumption was
             employed that two thirds of all distance education access was due to geographic isolation. This
             provides a figure of approximately $60.4 million. This figure was also unable to be broken down into
             primary and secondary as many of the distance education centres cater for K-12.
             As mentioned earlier, the costs of distance education are provided for information only and were not
             included in the final calculation of direct costs.




33
  Accounting difficulties in NSW and Queensland, primarily as a result of global budgeting, made it difficult to extract the direct non-staff costs
associated with location and hence require an estimate of the extent of the direct non-staff costs in those two jurisdictions. A per capita average was
derived using the figures supplied by SA, Tas., and Vic and then applied to NSW and Qld. WA data was not included in the calculation as it is
significantly more dispersed than the other states and bears a disproportionate cost associated with distance. The per capita Western Australia figure
was used to calculate the total cost for the Northern Territory as they were also unable to adequately cost direct non staff costs.
34
  Qld had atypically large expenditure due to the Cooler Schools program in non-metropolitan schools in 2001. The capital expenditure program aims
to provide and maintain air conditioners in schools in particularly hot climates. Expenditure on the program peaked in 2001.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                         Final May 05, Page 63
Resourcing The National Goals Project                                                                   Additional Resourcing Need: School Related




4.8          Indirect Cost Factors (school size related)



                                                 Key Findings - Indirect Cost Factors

                 Total Indirect Costs
                                 • Total indirect costs for non-metropolitan schools amounted to $472.1M, comprising:

                             Indirect Costs for Primary Schools
                                   • This amounted to $246.6M

                             Indirect Costs for Secondary Schools
                                   • This amounted to 226.5M




             This section of the report calculates the indirect factors arising from service delivery scale in non-
             metropolitan areas.35 The size of a school is acknowledged as a significant factor in determining
             costs of schooling: small schools are said to have some ‘diseconomies of scale’ leading to higher
             costs per unit of service compared with larger schools. Non-metropolitan schools are significantly
             smaller than metropolitan schools. Diseconomies of scale principally arise from higher staff to
             student ratios, as these account for over 75% of total costs in both primary and secondary
             government schools. In addition, fixed costs of operating such as library facilities, network
             connections and sporting equipment are spread over more students in larger schools resulting in
             further diseconomies of scale for smaller schools.
             The higher proportion of smaller schools in non-metropolitan locations is reflected in the slightly
             lower student to teacher ratios for both primary and secondary non-metropolitan schools. The
             national average (not including the ACT)36 for non-metropolitan primary schools is 17.16 and 12.53
             for secondary schools, compared to 18.33 for primary schools and 13.47 for secondary in
             metropolitan schools.37

             Table 4.3: Full-time Student/ Teaching Staff Ratios, 2001
                                                               Metropolitan school*                           Non-metropolitan school*
               Primary                                                        18.33                                         17.16
               Secondary                                                      13.47                                         12.53
           * Derived from data supplied by States to SRT Secretariat


             While staffing costs are the main focus of this section of the project, it is acknowledged that the
             figure calculated for size (indirect) factors will underestimate the true cost by the amount of
             diseconomy associated with the fixed costs.




35
   It is argued that scale factors arising in metropolitan areas are policy related issues and should not be included in the estimate of school-related
additional resource needs.
36
   The entire school population of the ACT is considered to be metropolitan and therefore has not been included in the analysis of this report.
37
   These student-teacher ratios are slightly higher than the all government school average. This reflects the different sample frame used for the analysis
of metropolitan and non-metropolitan schools and their teachers. The total number of teachers counted for this exercise was only those directly
allocated to schools. This count does not include teachers who are: i) administration, curriculum and project work activities positions not allocated to
individual schools as part of their entitlements; ii) school counselors; iii) mobile teachers; and iii) teachers otherwise miscellaneously defined.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                         Final May 05, Page 64
Resourcing The National Goals Project                                                                          Additional Resourcing Need: School Related




                In order to calculate the indirect costs associated with non-metropolitan schools, each State and
                Territory (except ACT) was asked to provide the following data for primary and secondary schools
                in designated bandwidths (ranges of school size)38:
                     • Schools
                     • FTE students
                     • FTE teachers
                     • FTE non teaching staff
                     • Teacher and non-teacher salaries
                A net subsidy per non-metropolitan school student was calculated by dividing total non-metropolitan
                salaries by the number of non-metropolitan students, minus total metropolitan salaries divided by the
                number of metropolitan students. This was done for each jurisdiction. Total net subsidy was
                calculated by multiplying the per capita subsidy figure by the number of non-metropolitan students.39
                This analysis revealed a total national net subsidy of $472,111,060 for all non-metropolitan students,
                including $245,573,857 for primary school students and $226,537,203 for secondary school students.
                The per capita cost per primary school student in 2001 was $495, and $738 per secondary school
                student.

                 Table 4.4: Total Indirect Subsidy, Government Schools, 2001
                                                                              Primary                       Secondary                     Total
                  Metropolitan Student / Staff ratio                           18.33                          13.47
                  Non-metropolitan Student / Staff ratio                       17.16                          12.53
                  Net subsidy                                               $245,573,856                   $226,537,202               $472,111,060
                  Per capita subsidy                                           $495                           $738                       $588


4.9             Total cost of school related factors (Direct and Indirect)

                The total cost of school related factors includes both the direct and indirect costs, although this
                analysis excludes the $60.4 million dollars spent on distance education in 2001. From these total
                costs, it is estimated that each non-metropolitan primary student costs approximately $650 more to
                school than a metropolitan counterpart. The cost for a non-metropolitan secondary school student is
                approximately $880.
                Current funding for additional resourcing needs of school related factors for non-metropolitan
                schools is considerable. The table below shows an additional national expenditure in the order of
                $590 million. This equates to an additional allocation of $735 per non-metropolitan student in direct
                and indirect subsidies.

                Table 4.5: Total Cost of School Related Factors, Government Schools, 2001
                                                                     Primary                          Secondary                        Total
                  Total direct costs                               $76,321,975                       $40,615,434                    $116,937,410
                  Total indirect costs                            $245,573,857                      $226,537,203                    $472,111,060
                  Total costs                                     $321,895,832                     $267,152,637.4                   $589,048,470
                  Total per capita                                       $648                               $871                           $733


                This is a significant additional cost. It represents approximately 11 per cent of the comparable
                national average per capita cost of schooling (accrual basis), as shown in the table below. Additional
                expenditure for non-metropolitan schools represents 12-13 per cent of the Base Cost of schooling
                (2001 figures) and 11-12 per cent of the AGSRC.


38
     In line with Commonwealth Grants Commission reporting.
39
     Total salaries figures include all allowances paid directly to staff as a result of the location of the school.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                            Final May 05, Page 65
Resourcing The National Goals Project                                                       Additional Resourcing Need: School Related




           Table 4.6: Significance of Additional Resources for School Related Factors
               Additional resources              Per Capita ($)              % of ELC       % of government          % of AGSRC
                                                                             Per capita     average in school         Per capita
                                                                                                  costs
            Primary level                              648                  13% ($4982)       11% ($6050)            11% ($5657)
            Secondary level                            871                  12% ($7006)       11% ($8068)            12% ($7469)


           The greatest part of additional expenditures (up to 85 per cent) is accounted for by salary related
           indirect costs (see table below). This is the cost associated with the diseconomies of operating
           smaller schools in non-metropolitan areas.

           Table 4.7: Breakdown of Additional Resourcing for School Related Factors, per capita, 2001
                         Factor                                     Primary                                Secondary
                                                     $ per capita              % of total       $ per capita         % of total

            Direct costs                                  154                     24                132                   15
            Salary related indirect costs                 495                     76                738                   85
            Total                                         649                     100               870*                  100
         * Minor variation from previously quoted figures due to rounding




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                          Final May 05, Page 66
Resourcing The National Goals                                                              Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




Chapter 5 Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools


                                                               Key Findings

             Total VET in Schools Costs (Years 11 & 12)

                             •   The total national school costs of delivering VET in schools for 2001 (years 11 and 12 only)
                                  was $250.6m, ($208.1m excluding indirect costs)


                        Table 5.1: Total costs of delivering VET in Schools for 2001, (Years 11 and 12)

                                 Factor                                      Total                   Additional
                                 Direct school cost (psh)                    $6.41                   $0.98
                                 Total Direct                                $208.1m                 $31.8m
                                 Indirect cost (psh)                         $1.31                   na
                                 Total Indirect                              $42.5 m                 Na
                                 Total Costs                                 $250.6 m

                       Differential Cost
                             • The differential direct cost of providing VET in Schools (years 11 and 12) is estimated to be
                                   $31.8 million for 2001. These are costs incurred at the school level and are compared with
                                   school level costs calculated as part of the Base cost.
                             • Per capita differential – $187 additional recurrent cost per VET student for 2001,
                             • Indirect recurrent costs are estimated at $42.5 million for 2001. Indirect costs are those costs
                                   borne by non-school organisations including central administrations for processing, testing,
                                   certification, travel etc. They have not been calculated as part of the differential cost because
                                   it is not possible to disentangle and compare these costs with the average indirect costs
                                   across all years 11 and 12 programs.

                       Cost of Enrolment Trends
                             • The maximum estimated additional cost associated with anticipated future enrolment trends
                                  up to 2010 was $97m. Four scenarios were examined:
                                        Base Case
                                        Increasing retention rate
                                        Increasing VET in School hours
                                        Increased uptake of higher level certificates

                       Cost of Consistent High Quality
                             • The maximum additional cost of obtaining consistent high quality, modelled next to anticipated
                                 future enrolment trends up to 2010 was estimated at $109.5m

                       Cost of Improving Quality
                             • The maximum additional cost of achieving a 5 per cent increase in quality, modelled next to
                                  anticipated future enrolment trends up to 2010 was estimated at $111.2m.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                           Final May 05, Page 67
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                      Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




5.1          Introduction

             VET in Schools imposes cost burdens above those generated by the general curriculum. These
             additional costs are the focus of this chapter, as well as the total, national costs of delivering VET in
             Schools.
             The SRT secretariat developed a detailed methodology for the analysis of the VET related future
             ARN and an independent contractor was engaged to undertake the assignment. This chapter is based
             on the results from that study and its estimates 40 of the:
                  • total costs and the differential costs of providing VET in Schools nationally;
                  • additional costs associated with anticipated enrolment trends in the future; and
                  • additional costs associated with obtaining consistent high quality.
             For the purpose of this project, the MCEETYA definition of VET in Schools is being used:
             Programs that are undertaken by school students as part of the senior secondary certificate and
             which provide credit towards a nationally recognised VET qualification within the AQF. The
             training that students receive reflects specific industry competency standards and is delivered by
             Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) or by the school in partnership with an RTO.
             The implication of adopting this definition is that the cost estimates focus on senior secondary
             schooling. VET courses offered at lower year levels or those not leading to a recognised qualification
             are not captured.

5.2          Background and methodology

             The basis of the cost of general education for senior secondary schools was derived from the Base
             cost estimates of Stage 1 of the Resourcing the National Goals Project. Information on the current
             cost of delivering VET in Schools was obtained from the report The Cost of VET in Schools.41
             The Cost of VET in Schools report suggests the total cost per student hour (psh) of delivering VET in
             Schools is $7.72psh. This includes $6.41psh of costs incurred directly at the school and $1.31psh of
             costs incurred by non-school organisations in their support of VET in School activities. The Base
             cost estimate does not include any costs incurred by non-school organisations. Thus, to be
             comparable to the Base cost estimate, the relevant cost for delivery of VET in Schools is the direct
             school cost of $6.41psh.
             It should be noted that the cost model developed in the Cost of VET in Schools report does not reflect
             all possible delivery environments but rather the predominant structures of delivery and drivers of
             costs that exist within Australia. Other jurisdictions may have more expensive modes of delivering
             VET in Schools that are not captured in the Cost of VET in Schools report. However, this chapter
             confines itself to the national, direct costs identified in the Cost of VET in Schools report.

5.3          Total Cost and Cost Differentials

             Using information on the number of students enrolled in VET in Schools and the average number of
             VET in School hours per student in senior secondary school it was possible to calculate an estimate
             of the total additional cost incurred by schools due to the delivery of VET in Schools courses.42

40 The Allen Consulting Group (2003, unpublished report to SRT) Resourcing the National Goals, Stage 2: Curriculum Related Cost Drivers, VET in
Schools
41
   The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER (June 2003), The Cost of VET in Schools: An analysis of the costs of delivering
VET in Schools including an analysis of cost efficiencies, Final Report to the Department of Education, Science and Training.
42
   The number of students enrolled in VET in School programs in 2001 was 169,809. The average number of VET in School hours per student in senior
secondary school in 2001 was 191 hours. Information from the publication National Data on Participation in VET in Schools Programs for the 2002
School Year Compiled by the MCEETYA Taskforce on Transition from School from data provided by States and Territories has been used to calculate
the average number of VET in School hours per student in senior secondary in 2001 at 191. It is noted that the Cost of VET in Schools Report includes
an estimate of 205 hours for the 2001 average annual VET in School hours. This estimate was based on the previous MCEETYA Taskforce on
Transition from School publication that included an error in the total number of reported VET in School hours, that was identified in the 2002
publication.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05, Page 68
Resourcing The National Goals                                               Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




           It was also possible to calculate an estimate of the total national cost to schools of delivering VET in
           Schools. This comprises two elements, a direct school cost and an indirect school cost, further
           broken down to costs per student hour.
           The growth scenarios that were modelled do not include indirect costs and only account for direct
           costs. This is because the nature of the relationship between the non-school organisation costs and
           enrolments, or average annual student hours (the factors that are modelled in the scenarios), is likely
           to be different to the relationship between direct school costs and those factors modelled. For
           example, the non-school organisation costs are likely to have a large fixed component that does not
           substantially increase as, say, VET in School student hours or enrolments increase. Consequently, it
           is not appropriate to directly apply the per student hour cost to changing student hours/enrolments.
           The implication is that the results apply only to costs incurred at school level and do not capture
           those additional costs incurred by non-school organisations to support the delivery of VET in
           Schools.

5.3.1      Additional costs associated with anticipated enrolment trends in the future
           The cost of providing VET in Schools will fluctuate with changing enrolment patterns. Both demand
           side and supply side factors will impact on VET in Schools enrolments. For example, demand side
           factors driving cost fluctuations include changes in the participation rate, proportion of students
           undertaking VET in Schools programs, as well as the absolute number of students. Supply side
           factors driving cost fluctuations include the course types and levels on offer.
           The project examined the impact of future VET in School enrolment trends on delivery cost under
           four alternative scenarios. The scenarios were developed based on reviewing relevant documents,
           particularly Future Funding Options for VET in Schools completed by the Australian National
           Training Authority (ANTA) and with input from the SRT Secretariat. The scenarios were modelled
           using the available data and projecting out to 2010.
           The scenarios modelled are:
               • Scenario 1 base case: assumes that the growth in enrolments in VET in Schools programs
                    will continue in the future, while the average hours per student per year and the range of
                    courses available are maintained.
               • Scenario 2 increasing retention rate: builds on scenario 1 and assesses the impacts of a
                    higher retention rate in senior secondary schooling on demand for VET in Schools
                    programs.
               • Scenario 3 increasing VET in School hours: extends scenario 2 by assuming an increase in
                    the ‘depth’ of VET in Schools participation by each student.
               • Scenario 4 increased uptake of higher level certificates: builds on scenario 3 and extends it
                    by assuming that more students undertake higher level certificate courses.

5.3.2      Additional costs associated with obtaining consistent high quality
           The purpose of this component of the project was to identify those factors that are most influential
           on quality in VET in Schools, and to provide an estimate of the cost of obtaining consistent and high
           quality VET in Schools delivery. Achieving high quality VET in Schools is a critical issue for the
           education and training sector, for industry, unions and students. All parties have an interest in
           ensuring that VET in Schools programs provide equivalent quality training to VET delivered by the
           training sector. Jurisdiction representatives on the Transition from School Taskforce completed a
           survey that was used in conjunction with existing cost information to estimate results on the
           additional costs associated with obtaining consistent high quality.
           The results uniformly identify the importance of teacher professional development and training, and
           access to work placement for students as critical factors in achieving quality delivery of VET in
           Schools. Schools in rural and regional locations incur additional costs associated exclusively with the
           delivery of VET in Schools programs. These additional VET specific costs are mostly related to
           transportation and travel for all parties involved in VET in Schools including students, teachers and
           workplace co-ordinators.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                          Final May 05, Page 69
Resourcing The National Goals                                                 Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




5.3.3      Additional costs associated with obtaining an improvement in quality
           Information was also obtained to examine the resource implications associated with an increase in
           the quality of VET in Schools of 5 per cent.
           As with the analysis of consistency, metropolitan and rural and regional schools would require
           different resource mixes to achieve this outcome. For metropolitan schools to achieve the
           improvement in quality, the greatest increase in resources would be directed to improving access to
           work placement for students. In contrast, for rural and regional schools to achieve the five per cent
           increase in quality of VET in Schools delivery, would require a substantial increase in four (of the
           total seven) of the quality factors.
           The impact on cost to achieve improved consistency of VET in Schools delivery and a five per cent
           increase in the quality of VET in Schools delivery are of a similar magnitude. A priori it was
           expected that the achievement of the step change in quality would require a notably higher level of
           resourcing than achieving increased consistency in delivery. The similarity in the result may indicate
           that achieving consistency in delivery of VET in Schools is a task that is of similar magnitude to
           increasing quality by five per cent.

5.4        Detailed Findings - (i) Identification of the differential and total costs of VET in
           Schools

           The purpose of this component is to provide an estimate of the total and differential cost of
           delivering VET in Schools and general education in the senior secondary years.

5.4.1      Approach
           To calculate the differential costs of providing VET in Schools to general education requires
           estimates of the cost of providing VET in Schools and the cost of general education. The additional
           cost of providing VET in Schools is the difference between the VET in Schools and Base cost. To
           enable comparison of these two costs, they are calculated on a per student hour basis.

5.4.2      General education
           The basis of the cost of general education for senior secondary schools is derived from the estimates
           of Stage 1 of the Resourcing the National Goals Project. Stage 1 calculated the Base cost for schools
           that were identified as being effective in attaining specified learning and participation outcomes,
           with average SES profile and minimal additional program resource inputs required to address
           learning needs. This was calculated for both primary and secondary government schools.
           For the purpose of this project, the MCEETYA definition of VET in Schools is being used:

                  Programs that are undertaken by school students as part of the senior secondary certificate
                  and which provide credit towards a nationally recognised VET qualification within the AQF.
                  The training that students receive reflects specific industry competency standards and is
                  delivered by Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) or by the school in partnership with
                  an RTO.
           The implication of adopting this definition is that the cost estimates focus on senior secondary
           schooling. VET courses offered at lower year levels or those not leading to a recognised qualification
           are not captured.
           To reflect the focus on senior secondary schooling, the SRT secretariat adjusted the Base cost results
           to establish an average senior secondary school cost. The adjusted Base cost for senior secondary
           students is $7,983 per student per annum, calculated using the proportionate difference between total
           secondary in-school expenditure and senior secondary in-school expenditure. The Base cost figure
           represents the costs of all business operations of a school for all activities, that is, the hours a school
           is open and for which they are responsible for students.
           To establish the per student hour (psh) Base cost requires an estimate of student hours per year,
           reflecting not just classroom time, but the hours a school is open and responsible for students. School



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                            Final May 05, Page 70
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                      Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            opening hours do not appear to be prescribed in the same way that teacher hours are prescribed in
            industrial awards or regulations. The convention is that classes operate from 9.00am to 3.00pm.
            However, schools are open for a short period prior to and after these times while students arrive and
            depart. Thus, in this project it has been assumed that schools are open from 8.30am to 3.30pm, for
            five days per week and 42 weeks per year. Using this information an average of 1,470 hours was
            calculated as the average annual hours per senior student per year.
            Based on the information described above, the calculated Base cost psh cost for senior students is
            $5.43 (see Table 5.2).

            Table 5.2: Calculation of the senior secondary Base cost per student hour
              Item                                                                                          Base cost
              Senior student cost per annum                                                                  $7,983*
              Annual senior student hours                                                                     1,470
              Senior student Base cost psh                                                                    $5.43
          * Base cost for secondary schools of $7,006 multiplied by the proportionate increase of senior secondary in-school expenditure compared to
          total secondary in-school expenditure, as outlined in MCEETYA 2001/02 Summary Table 4.5.

5.4.3       VET in Schools
            Information on the current cost of delivering VET in Schools is available from the report The Cost of
            VET in Schools.43 This information is based on school cost estimates obtained from a survey returns
            of 48 schools across all States and Territories. The Cost of VET in Schools report presents indicative
            dollar amounts for the actual cost experience for schools of delivering VET in Schools programs.
            These estimates are reasonably representative of the average costs across schools. The results of the
            national model presented in The Cost of VET in Schools provide the estimate of the cost of delivering
            VET in Schools used in this report.
            This project uses the assumption that teachers work 32 hours per week, which is the national average
            of the regulated hours required by all jurisdictions.44
            The Cost of VET in Schools results for the national model with an assumption of teacher hours at 32
            hours per week reports the total cost per student hour of delivering VET in Schools is $7.72psh. This
            includes $6.41psh of costs incurred directly at the school and $1.31psh of costs incurred by
            non-school organisations in their support of VET in School activities. The Base cost estimate does
            not include any costs incurred by non-school organisations to support the delivery of VET in
            Schools. Thus, to be comparable to the Base cost estimate, the relevant cost for delivery of VET in
            Schools is the direct school cost of $6.41psh.

5.4.4       Results
            Using the above information, an estimate of the differential cost of delivering VET in Schools and
            general education, as estimated by the senior secondary Base cost (SS-base cost), is $0.98psh (see
            Table 5.3).

            Table 5.3: Cost differential between senior secondary Base cost psh and VET in Schools psh
                       SS –Base cost psh                        VET in Schools cost psh                  Cost differential SS –Base cost
                                                                                                            and VET in Schools psh
                               $5.43                                         $6.41                                    $0.98



            As evident from Table 5.3, it is more costly for schools to deliver VET in Schools courses than
            general education curriculum, as represented by the SS-Base cost. Based on the information in
            table 2.2, it is possible to calculate an estimate of the total additional cost incurred by schools due to


43
 The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER (2003), op.cit.
44
 The Cost of VET in Schools Report also included modelling results based on an assumption that teachers work an average of 38 hours per week
which is the number of hours required by Victoria and is the highest of the regulated hours among all jurisdictions.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05, Page 71
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                          Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




             the delivery of VET in Schools courses. For 2001, the total additional cost to schools of delivering
             VET in Schools courses was approximately $31.8 million (see Table 5.4).

             Table 5.4: Differential direct school cost of delivering VET in schools for 2001
               Factor                                                                                         Additional VET in Schools Cost
               Difference delivering VET in Schools and all education (psh)                                                $0.98
               Number of students enrolled in VET in Schools programs (2001)                                              169,809
               Average number of VET in School hours per student in senior                                                  191
               secondary in (2001)
               Per capita differential – additional recurrent cost per VET student                                             $187
               Total differential for 2001                                                                                    $31.8m



             It is also possible to calculate an estimate of the total national cost to schools of delivering VET in
             Schools. This comprises two elements, a direct school cost and an indirect school cost. The direct
             school cost is calculated using $6.41 psh to deliver VET in Schools and was approximately $208.1
             million in 2001. Non-school organisations — including government departments and agencies and
             non-government school organisations — also incur costs associated with policy setting,
             administration and the delivery of VET in Schools. These costs have been estimated to be in the
             order of $1.31 per student hour which was approximately $42.5 million in 2001.45 The estimate of
             total direct school costs and indirect non-school organisation costs associated with the national
             delivery of VET in Schools in 2001 was $250.6m (see Table 5.5).

             Table 5.5: Total direct and indirect cost of delivering VET in Schools for 2001
                 Factor                                                                              Total VET in              Total VET in Schools
                                                                                                  Schools direct cost              indirect cost
               Difference delivering VET in Schools and all education (psh)                             $6.41                          $1.31
               Number of students enrolled in VET in Schools programs (2001)                           169,809                        169,809
               Average number of VET in School hours per student in senior                               191                            191
               secondary in (2001)
               Total school level VET in schools cost 2001                                               $208.1m
               Total indirect VET in schools cost 2001                                                                                 $42.5 m
               Total school level and indirect VET in Schools cost 2001                                                   $250.6


5.4.5        Issues for consideration
             This report has relied on existing cost data. The factors set out below are relevant when interpreting
             the results in this report. Alternative assumptions or different cost data would deliver different
             results:
                  • the Base cost schools cost incorporates both the cost of delivering general education and
                       VET in Schools subjects. If the costs of delivering VET in Schools courses were to be
                       removed from the Base cost, it would leave a pure general education cost which could
                       reasonably be expected to be less than $5.43. This would have the effect of increasing the
                       difference of $0.98 psh calculated above.
                  • the Base cost schools were selected particularly because they were effective in relation to
                       student outcomes and were considered to have characteristics that contributed to a
                       relatively low delivery cost. Thus, the Base cost will be lower than a cost associated with
                       an average cost school. The schools included in the Cost of VET in Schools Report survey
                       were selected based on the use of particular VET in School delivery modes and course
                       offerings.46 It is noted that eight of the 66 schools included in the final survey sample had

45
   The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER (2003), op. cit., p 85. It is noted that the figure of $1.31 was calculated based on
data in survey returns that included the costs of the main education/training department and the Board of Studies in each jurisdiction but did not have a
100 per cent response rate.
46
   The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER (2003), op. cit., p.4.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                         Final May 05, Page 72
Resourcing The National Goals                                                 Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




                      been identified by stakeholders as best practice schools. A consequence of the different
                      selection criteria is that the Cost of VET in Schools Report results may have been lower if
                      the Base cost selection criteria had been adopted. This would have the effect of reducing
                      the difference of $0.98 psh calculated above;
                •     the cost base used to calculate the Base costs is broader than the cost base used to calculate
                      VET in Schools costs. For example, the VET in Schools cost does not include the costs of
                      infrastructure at the school used to deliver VET in Schools courses. The Cost of VET in
                      Schools report identified that these costs can be substantial. Further, the VET in Schools
                      cost does not include an amount that represents the school administrative overhead, indirect
                      infrastructure, for example libraries and maintenance, or physical infrastructure. If these
                      costs were included, it would increase the cost of VET in Schools psh and therefore
                      increase the cost differential above $0.98;
                •     the Base cost schools results are based on information from government schools. The VET
                      in Schools results are based on information from government, Catholic and independent
                      schools;
                •     the figure of $1.31 was calculated based on data in survey returns that included the costs of
                      the main education/training department and the Board of Studies in each jurisdiction but
                      did not have a 100 per cent response rate, thus is an under-estimate of the average national
                      indirect cost of delivering VET in Schools; and
                •     costs for the delivery of VET and the Base cost are assumed to remain constant over time.

5.5        Detailed Findings - (ii) Impact of future VET in School enrolment trends on delivery
           cost

           The purpose of this component is to identify the impact of future VET in School enrolment trends on
           delivery costs at the school level. These school level costs are referred to as direct costs.

5.5.1      Approach
           The cost of providing VET in Schools will fluctuate with changing enrolment patterns. Both demand
           side and supply side factors will impact on VET in Schools enrolments. For example, demand side
           factors driving cost fluctuations include the changes in the participation rate, proportion of students
           undertaking VET in Schools programs, as well as the absolute number of students. Supply side
           factors driving cost fluctuations include the course types and levels on offer.
           To understand the cost impacts of various enrolment trends four scenarios were developed based on
           reviewing relevant documents, particularly Future Funding Options for VET in Schools completed
           by the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA). The scenarios are modelled using the
           available data and projecting out to 2010.
           The scenarios modelled are:
               • Scenario 1 base case: that assumes that the growth in enrolments in VET in Schools
                    programs will continue in the future, while the average hours per student per year and the
                    range of courses available are maintained.
               • Scenario 2 increasing retention rate: that builds on scenario 1 and assesses the impacts of a
                    higher retention rate in senior secondary schooling on demand for VET in Schools
                    programs.
               • Scenario 3 increasing VET in School hours: that extends scenario 2 by assuming an
                    increase in the ‘depth’ of VET in Schools participation by each student.
               • Scenario 4 increased uptake of higher level certificates: builds on scenario 3 and extends it
                    by assuming that more students will undertake higher level certificate courses.
           The background, assumptions, and draft results for each scenario are presented below.
           As discussed previously, non-school organisations incur costs associated with the delivery of VET in
           Schools. In 2001, these costs were in the order of $1.31 psh, or $42.5 million nationally. The costs



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                            Final May 05, Page 73
Resourcing The National Goals                                                Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




           presented in the scenarios below include the costs incurred directly at school level but do not account
           for costs incurred in non-school organisations. This is because the nature of the relationship between
           the non-school organisation costs and enrolments, or average annual student hours (the factors that
           are modelled in the scenarios), is likely to be different to the relationship between direct school costs
           and those factors modelled. For example, the non-school organisation costs are likely to have a large
           fixed component that does not substantially increase as, say, VET in School student hours or
           enrolments increase. Consequently, it is not appropriate to directly apply the $1.31 psh cost to
           changing student hours/enrolments. The implication is that the results below apply only to costs
           incurred at school level and do not capture those additional costs incurred by non-school
           organisations to support the delivery of VET in Schools.

5.5.2      Scenario 1: Base Case
           Scenario 1 assumes that the growth in enrolments in VET in Schools programs will continue in the
           future, while the average hours per student per year and the range of courses available are
           maintained.
           Growth in the system would be:
               • the natural increase in the 15 – 19 year old population; and
               • growth in student participation in VET in Schools at a slowing rate.

           Discussion
           VET in Schools has experienced strong growth from 1996 to 2002. In 1996 the number of senior
           secondary students undertaking VET as part of their senior secondary school certificate was 16 per
           cent, increasing to 44 per cent in 2002.
           There are a number of reasons to assume a slower growth rate in VET in Schools participation than
           experienced to date.
           Although there is strong growth in student enrolments in VET in Schools, that growth was much
           higher during the first three years of this period, levelling out at around 10 per cent per annum during
           the last three years. Between 1999 and 2002, the compound growth in the number of student
           enrolments was 11 per cent per annum, compared to just over 44 per cent between 1996 and 1999.
           This suggests ongoing growth in enrolments, but at a diminishing rate.
           Senior certificate students select a limited number of subjects from both general education and VET
           in Schools programs. Thus, there is a natural limit to the number of VET in Schools subjects that
           students can undertake.
           By 2002 more than 95 per cent of schools offering a senior secondary certificate offered VET in
           Schools programs compared to about 70 per cent in 1997. This suggests that the rapid initial start up
           and establishment phase for schools taking up VET in Schools is drawing to a close, and that growth
           opportunities in number of schools offering VET in Schools programs are limited.

           Scenario 1 assumptions
           For the purposes of this study it is assumed that growth will continue at a diminishing rate until
           levelling out at 2.75 per cent in 2010 (i.e. 25 per cent of the compound growth of 11 per cent
           between 1999 and 2002). The result is compound growth of 6.8 per cent for the eight years between
           2002 and 2010, resulting in almost 70 per cent of senior secondary students enrolled in VET
           programs as part of their senior secondary school certificate in 2010. ANTA have suggested that 70
           per cent of students enrolled in VET in Schools by 2010 is a useful figure for projection purposes.
           Figure 5.1 illustrates the assumed growth rate of student enrolments in VET in Schools.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05, Page 74
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                              Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            Figure 5.1: Compound growth of students enrolled in VET in Schools - 1996 to 2010
          Source: MCEETYA, National Data on Participation in VET in Schools Programs for the 2002 School Year, 2003; and The Allen
          Consulting Group.



            Results
            The draft results of modelling scenario 1 are summarised in Table 5.6 and Table 5.7. Table 5.6
            illustrates how the number of students increases at a diminishing growth rate over the eight-year
            period from 2002 to 2010, while the average number of hours per student per year stays constant at
            the 2002 average of 201 hours. On the basis of these assumption outlined above it is expected that
            there will be more than 286 000 students enrolled in VET in Schools programs in 2010.

Table 5.6: Variables used in Scenario 1
                                  Student participating in VET — slowing                 Average hours per student per year —
                                                growth rate                                          unchanged
              2001                                169,809                                                191
              2002                                185,520                                                201
              2003                                201,177                                                201
              2004                                216,520                                                201
              2005                                231,273                                                201
              2006                                245,152                                                201
              2007                                257,871                                                201
              2008                                269,154                                                201
              2009                                278,744                                                201
              2010                                286,409                                                201
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group



            Using the cost information presented in Section 5.4 (see Table 5.4), it is possible to estimate the
            impact of future VET in Schools enrolment trends (as set out in Table 5.6) on delivery costs over the
            period.



 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                           Final May 05, Page 75
 Resourcing The National Goals                                               Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            Assuming that the SS-Base cost psh cost and the VET in Schools psh cost remain constant over the
            period, the total cost of providing VET in Schools will increase from the estimated $208.1 million in
            2001 to an estimated $369 million in 2010. If the students undertaking VET in School were instead
            all undertaking general education subjects at Base cost schools the estimated cost to the schools
            would have been $176.3 million in 2001 and increased to $312.6 million in 2010. Thus, in this
            scenario the additional costs to schools associated with students undertaking VET in Schools rather
            than general education subjects increases from $31.8 million in 2001 to $56.4 million in 2010.

Table 5.7: Estimated direct delivery cost of VET in Schools - Scenario 1, 2001
                                   Cost of VET in Schools   Equivalent SS- Base cost           Differential cost
                                             $m                        $m                             $m
                  2001                      208.1                    176.3                           31.8
                  2002                      239.6                    203.0                           36.6
                  2003                      259.2                    219.6                           39.6
                  2004                      279.0                    236.3                           42.6
                  2005                      298.0                    252.4                           45.5
                  2006                      315.9                    267.6                           48.3
                  2007                      332.2                    281.5                           50.8
                  2008                      346.8                    293.8                           53.0
                  2009                      359.1                    304.3                           54.9
                  2010                      369.0                    312.6                           56.4
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group

 5.5.3      Scenario 2: Increasing retention rate
            Scenario 2 assesses the impacts of a higher retention rate in senior secondary schooling on demand
            for VET in Schools.
            Growth in the system would be:
                • natural increase in the 15 – 19 year old population (consistent with scenario 1);
                • growth in student participation in VET in Schools at a slower rate (consistent with scenario
                     1); and
                • an increase in the proportion of the 15 – 19 year old population that complete senior
                     secondary schooling.

            Discussion
            The National Goals for Schooling state that:
                    all students have access to the high quality education necessary to enable the completion of
                    school education to Year 12 or its vocational equivalent and that provides clear and
                    recognised pathways to employment and further education and training.
            Jurisdictions have committed to a school retention target of 90 per cent by 2010. The apparent
            retention rate for years 10 to 12 in 2002 was 77 per cent. Increasing the retention rate will increase
            the absolute number of students at school and hence the number of students undertaking VET in
            Schools.

            Scenario 2 assumptions
            For the purpose of this scenario, it is assumed that jurisdictions will meet their 90 per cent retention
            target rate by 2010 and that the proportion of students undertaking VET in Schools subjects will be
            consistent with the current trend, such that by 2010, 70 per cent will be enrolled in a VET in Schools
            subject.

            Results
            The impact of a 90 per cent retention rate for senior secondary students on enrolments in VET in
            Schools programs is illustrated in Table 5.8. Although the number of students participating in VET
            in Schools will still grow at a diminishing growth rate, it is estimated that the increase in the number



 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                          Final May 05, Page 76
 Resourcing The National Goals                                               Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            of students completing year 11 and year 12 will result in more than 350,000 students enrolled in
            VET in Schools programs by 2010. For this scenario is it assumed that the average number of hours
            per student per year stays constant at the 2002 average of 201.

Table 5.8: Variables used in Scenario 2
                                  Student participating in VET — slowing   Average hours per student per year —
                                   growth rate, increased retention rate               unchanged
                  2001                            169,809                                  191
                  2002                            185,520                                  201
                  2003                            211,580                                  201
                  2004                            227,205                                  201
                  2005                            243,975                                  201
                  2006                            261,973                                  201
                  2007                            281,288                                  201
                  2008                            302,692                                  201
                  2009                            325,712                                  201
                  2010                            350,467                                  201
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group



            The estimated total and differential cost of the future delivery of VET in Schools in scenario 2 is
            summarised in Table 5.9.
            Assuming that the SS-Base cost psh cost and the VET in Schools psh cost remain constant over the
            period, the increased retention rate will have the following impacts on school costs:
                 • The total cost of providing VET in Schools will increase from the estimated $208.1 million
                      in 2001 to an estimated $451.5 million in 2010.
                 • If the students undertaking VET in School were instead all undertaking general education
                      subjects at Base cost schools the estimated cost to the schools would have been $176.3
                      million in 2001 and increased to $382.5 million in 2010.
                 • The additional costs to schools associated with students undertaking VET in Schools rather
                      than general education subjects increases from $31.8 million in 2001 to $69 million in
                      2010.
                 • The estimated total cost of delivering VET in Schools is estimated to be $451.5 million in
                      2010. Compared to a Base cost for general education over the same period of $382.5
                      million, the estimated differential cost of delivering VET in Schools in scenario 2 amounts
                      to $69 million in 2010.
            There is currently discussion around the general cost implications associated with obtaining a
            retention rate of 70 per cent. It has been proposed by some that the per student costs of achieving the
            higher retention rate will increase due to the additional effort required by schools to meet the needs
            of the group of students who, under current arrangements, would choose not to remain at school. It is
            also possible that this group of newly retained students could be more strongly attracted to VET in
            School subjects than the existing student group. If this were the case the rate of growth in demand
            for VET in Schools subjects would be greater than the 6.8 per cent compound growth rate between
            2002 to 2010. Both of these factors would increase the total cost and differential cost of providing
            VET in Schools. However, due to the absence of data on which to make any estimate of the extent of
            any increase in resource requirements, the results presented in this modelling do not account for this.




 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                          Final May 05, Page 77
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




Table 5.9: Estimated direct delivery costs of VET in Schools - Scenario 2
                             Cost of VET in Schools          Base cost — $m               Differential cost — $m
                                      — $m
             2001                     208.1                       176.3                              31.8
             2002                     239.6                       203.0                              36.6
             2003                     272.6                       230.9                              41.7
             2004                     292.7                       248.0                              44.7
             2005                     314.3                       266.3                              48.0
             2006                     337.5                       285.9                              51.6
             2007                     362.4                       307.0                              55.4
             2008                     390.0                       330.4                              59.6
             2009                     419.7                       355.5                              64.1
             2010                     451.5                       382.5                              69.0
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group



 5.5.4      Scenario 3: Increasing VET in School hours
            Scenario 3 builds on scenario 2. It uses the assumptions from scenario 2 and further assumes an
            increase in the ‘depth’ of VET in Schools participation by each student.
            Growth in the system would be:
                • natural increase in the 15 – 19 year old population (consistent with scenario 1);
                • growth in student participation in VET in Schools at a slower rate (consistent with scenario
                     1);
                • an increase in the proportion of the 15 – 19 year old population that complete senior
                     secondary schooling (consistent with scenario 2); and
                • growth in the average number of hours per student per year in VET in Schools programs.

            Discussion
            In 2002, the average hours per student per year in VET in Schools was 201 hours, compared to 110
            hours in 1998. Growth depends on how schools and students construct their participation in VET in
            Schools programs. There are two potential sources of growth in the average number of hours per
            student per year in VET in Schools programs.
            First, there may be an increase in the average number of courses undertaken by students. The
            discussion below suggests that it is reasonable to assume that subject offerings may increase and that
            students may increase the number of VET in Schools subjects undertaken as part of the senior
            certificate program.
            Nationally, enrolments in VET in Schools represent all nineteen ANTA industry groups. However,
            in 2002, 62 per cent of enrolments in VET in Schools courses were in four industries (see figure 3.2):
                 • Tourism — 19.7 per cent;
                 • Business and Clerical — 16 per cent;
                 • Computing — 15.4 per cent; and
                 • General Education and Training — 10.7 per cent.




 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05, Page 78
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                             Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




Figure 5.2: Enrolment as percentage by ANTA Industry group - 2002




          Source: MCEETYA, National Data on Participation in VET in Schools Programs for the 2002 School Year, 2003; and ANTA, Future
          Funding Options for VET Schools, 2002.



            It has been reported that several industries which represent a substantial share of the labour market,
            or which are expected to experience strong employment growth, are not yet significantly represented
            in current VET in Schools programs. Employment forecasts, released by Monash University in
            December 2002, indicate that the overall level of employment will increase by 10.8 per cent over the
            eight years from 2001-02 to 2009-10. Similar growth is also expected in occupational categories that
            are typically aligned with vocational education and training such as associate professional and
            intermediate clerical, sales and service workers. This suggests that VET in Schools could play an
            increasingly important role in assisting students prepare for future employment and in meeting
            industry training needs.
            As noted above, there has been a substantial increase in the average hours per student per year in
            VET in Schools between 1996 and 2002. Thus, the second likely driver of increased hours in VET in
            Schools is an increase in the average length of each course.
            A particular factor that could contribute to more hours per course is a higher proportion of courses
            including work placement. Between 1996 and 2002, strong growth was recorded in students
            participating in work placement. The average number of students participating in structured
            workplace learning increased from around 27 per cent of all VET in Schools students in 1997 to
            more than 61 per cent in 2002 and the total number of hours in workplace learning increased from
            2.3 million to 7.4 million in the same period. However, while more students are undertaking
            structured workplace learning, the average number of hours per student in workplace learning has



 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                          Final May 05, Page 79
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                               Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            decreased, from 89 hours in 1999 to 70 hours in 2001 suggesting that the additional structured
            workplace learning components are relatively short.
            School-Based New Apprenticeships have also grown. Students commencing School-Based New
            Apprenticeships also showed strong growth, increasing from 1,500 students (or 1.3 per cent of VET
            students) in 1998 to 7,390 (or 4 per cent) students in 2002.
            The growth in the average number of hours per student per year participating in structured workplace
            learning and School-Based New Apprenticeships, is expected to continue as the school sector
            increasingly embrace training packages within the secondary school certificate.

            Scenario 3 assumptions
            For the purposes of this scenario it is assumed that although growth in student enrolments will
            continue at a diminishing rate (see scenario 1), there will be an increase in the proportion of the 15 –
             19 year old population that complete senior secondary schooling (see scenario 2) while the average
            number of hours per student per year will increase by approximately 40 hours per student per year
            over the eight-year period between 2002 and 2010.
            As noted above, from 1998 to 2002, the average number of hours per student increased from 110
            hours to 201 hours. This represents a growth of 83 per cent over four years. It is expected that
            although the average number of hours will continue to increase (as discussed before) it will be at a
            slower rate, reflecting the now broad range of subject and certificate level offerings. The national
            average is underpinned by a high degree of difference in the average hours per student across States
            and Territories (see Table 5.10).
            The modelling assumes that the average number of hours in the four jurisdictions that are currently
            below the average of 201 hours (NSW, South Australia, Western Australia and the ACT), will
            increase to 201 hours by 2010 and the average number of hours in the jurisdictions currently above
            the national average will remain the same. The outcome of this assumption is that the average
            number of hours per student per year will be 241 hours in 2010, representing an increase of 40 hours
            (see Table 5.11) over the eight-year period from 2002 to 2010.

Table 5.10: Average hours per student per year - 2002
                                     Jurisdiction                                                 Average hours

              NSW                                                                                        132
              Victoria                                                                                   250
              Queensland                                                                                 309
              South Australia                                                                            111
              Western Australia                                                                          171
              Tasmania                                                                                   341
              Northern Territory                                                                         260
              ACT                                                                                        112
              Australia                                                                                  201
          Source: MCEETYA, National Data on Participation in VET in Schools Programs for the 2002 School Year

            Results
            Table 5.11 shows the increase in the average number of hours over eight years. It is estimated that
            the average number of hours per student per year will increase to 241 hours in 2010, while the
            number of students enrolled in VET in Schools increase to more than 350 thousand students over the
            same period.




 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                          Final May 05, Page 80
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                   Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




Table 5.11: Variables used in Scenario 3
                                   Student participating in VET — slowing      Average hours per student per year —
                                    growth rate, increased retention rate                  increasing
                  2001                             169,809                                     191
                  2002                             185,520                                     201
                  2003                             211,580                                     206
                  2004                             227,205                                     211
                  2005                             243,975                                     215
                  2006                             261,973                                     220
                  2007                             281,288                                     225
                  2008                             302,692                                     230
                  2009                             325,712                                     236
                  2010                             350,467                                     241
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group


            The estimated total and differential cost of the future delivery of VET in Schools according to
            scenario 3 is summarised in Table 5.12.
            Assuming that the SS-Base cost psh and the VET in Schools psh cost remain constant over the
            period, the increased average hours will have the following impacts on school costs:
                 • The total cost of providing VET in Schools will increase from the estimated $212.7 million
                      in 2001 to an estimated $553.2 million in 2010.
                 • If the student undertaking VET in School were instead all undertaking general education
                      subjects at Base cost schools the estimated cost to the schools would have been $176.3
                      million in 2001 and increased to $458.7 million in 2010.
                 • The additional costs to schools associated with students undertaking VET in Schools rather
                      than general education subjects increases from $36.4 million in 2001 to $94.6 million in
                      2010.

Table 5.12: Estimated direct delivery cost of VET in Schools - Scenario 3
                                 Cost of VET in Schools          Base cost — $m               Differential cost — $m
                                          — $m
                2001                      212.7                        176.3                            36.4
                2002                      244.8                        203.0                            41.8
                2003                      285.5                        236.7                            48.8
                2004                      313.5                        259.9                            53.6
                2005                      344.3                        285.5                            58.8
                2006                      378.1                        313.5                            64.6
                2007                      415.2                        344.2                            71.0
                2008                      456.9                        378.8                            78.1
                2009                      502.8                        416.8                            85.9
                2010                      553.2                        458.7                            94.6
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group




 5.5.5      Scenario 4: Increased uptake of higher level certificates
            Scenario 4 builds on scenario 3 but extends it by assuming that there is a shift to students
            undertaking higher level certificates.
            Growth in the system would be:
                • natural increase in the 15 – 19 year old population (consistent with scenario 1);
                • growth in student participation in VET in Schools at a slower rate (consistent with scenario
                     1);
                • an increase in the proportion of the 15 – 19 year old population that complete senior
                     secondary schooling (consistent with scenario 2);



 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                              Final May 05, Page 81
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                   Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




                  •     growth in the average number of hours per student per year in VET in Schools programs
                        (consistent with scenario 3); and
                  •     a shift in the proportion of students undertaking higher level certificate courses.

            Discussion
            Currently, the majority of VET in Schools courses are offered at Certificate Level I and Level II.
            However, it is reasonable to expect that the proportion of VET in Schools students undertaking
            higher level certificates will increase in the coming years.
            Demand for higher level courses will be underpinned by a number of factors including:
               • the anticipated increase in retention rates into senior secondary schooling;
               • the extension of VET in Schools courses into the earlier years of secondary school which
                    provides a basis for students to commence higher level certificates in senior secondary
                    school years;
               • the growth of School-Based new Apprenticeships; and
               • the employment needs of industry (as discussed in scenario 3).
            Schools’ ability to provide higher level courses is also anticipated to increase as VET in Schools
            becomes more embedded in school curricula. These higher level courses may be offered either
            directly by schools, or by delivery mode arrangements involving external parties. A potential shift to
            students undertaking higher certificate levels is relevant due to the increased costs generally
            associated with offering higher level certificate courses.

            Scenario 4 assumptions
            For the purposes of this scenario it is assumed that although growth in student enrolments will
            continue at a slower rate (see scenario 1), there will be an increase in the proportion of the 15 – 19
            year old population that complete senior secondary schooling (see scenario 2). The depth of
            participation remains consistent with the assumptions in scenario 3. In the absence of specific
            forecasts about changing demand for VET in Schools courses by certificate level, it is assumed that
            there will be a reasonable amount of growth in the number of students undertaking Certificate Level
            III, which has been modelled at 10 per cent over the period, and a smaller amount of growth in the
            number of students undertaking Certificate Level IV, which has been modelled at 5 per cent. Table
            5.13 shows the impact of these assumptions on the proportion of students undertaking VET in
            Schools courses by certificate level from 2002 to 2010.

            Table 5.13: Participation in different certificate levels of VET in Schools courses
                                                                           2002                                     2010
              Certificate   level I                                       22.36%                                   18.68%
              Certificate   level II                                      68.71%                                   57.40%
              Certificate   level III                                     8.34%                                    18.34%
              Certificate   level IV and higher                           0.58%                                    5.58%
          Source: NCVER, Australian Vocational Education and Training Statistics, Students and courses 2002.


            In the course of this project it has not been possible to identify existing information on the different
            costs incurred by schools to deliver different certificate level courses. The Cost of VET in Schools 47
            report indicated that higher costs were associated with higher level certificates due to their
            characteristics of:
                 • smaller average class sizes;
                 • increased infrastructure investment at the school;
                 • teacher professional development costs; or
                 • entering arrangements with other training providers.

47 The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER (2003), op. cit., p130.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                              Final May 05, Page 82
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                     Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            For the purpose of the modeling exercise it has been assumed that the higher the certificate level, the
            greater the delivery cost for schools. It has been assumed that over the eight year period from 2002
            to 2010, the cost of certificate level III VET in Schools courses will increase by 10 per cent per
            student hour (i.e. $7.05 per student hour), while the cost of certificate level IV courses will increase
            by an additional 5 per cent per student hour (i.e. $7.40 per student hour).

            Results
            The results of modelling scenario 4 are summarised in Table 5.14 and Table 5.15. Table 5.14
            illustrates how the average number of student per certificate level changes over the eight-year period
            from 2002 to 2010. In 2010, more than 350,000 students will be participating in VET in Schools due
            to a retention rate of 90 per cent for senior secondary students.

            Table 5.14: Student participation by certificate level in VET in Schools courses
                                                                                                        Certificate level IV
                                  Certificate level I   Certificate level II   Certificate level III       and higher
              2002                      41,489               116,682                 15,478                     1,075
              2003                      46,343               142,392                 20,296                     2,548
              2004                      48,719               149,695                 24,634                     4,157
              2005                      51,192               157,293                 29,501                     5,989
              2006                      53,762               165,192                 34,951                     8,068
              2007                      56,430               173,393                 41,043                    10,421
              2008                      59,331               182,307                 47,949                    13,106
              2009                      62,343               191,565                 55,665                    16,139
              2010                      65,467               201,168                 64,276                    19,556
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group



            The total and differential cost of the future delivery of VET in Schools according to scenario 4 is
            summarised in Table 5.15.
            Assuming that the SS-Base cost psh and the VET in Schools psh cost remain constant over the
            period, the higher proportion of students undertaking Certificate Levels III and IV will have the
            following impacts on school costs:
                 • The total cost of providing VET in Schools will increase from the estimated $208.1 million
                      in 2001 to an estimated $556.0 million in 2010.
                 • If the students undertaking VET in Schools were instead all undertaking general education
                      subjects the estimated cost to the schools would have been $176.3 million in 2001 and
                      increased to $458.7million in 2010.
                 • The additional costs to schools associated with students undertaking VET in Schools rather
                      than general education subjects increases from $31.8 million in 2001 to $97.3 million in
                      2010.

Table 5.15: Estimated direct delivery cost of VET in Schools - Scenario 4
                                      Cost of VET in                 Base cost— $m                 Differential cost — $m
                                      Schools — $m
                  2001                    208.1                            176.3                            31.8
                  2002                    239.6                            203.0                            36.6
                  2003                    279.8                            236.7                            43.1
                  2004                    307.8                            259.9                            47.9
                  2005                    338.9                            285.5                            53.4
                  2006                    373.3                            313.5                            59.8
                  2007                    411.3                            344.2                            67.1
                  2008                    454.6                            378.8                            75.8
                  2009                    502.6                            416.8                            85.8
                  2010                    556.0                            458.7                            97.3
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group




 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                Final May 05, Page 83
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                        Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




5.6            Detailed Findings - (iii) Obtaining consistent quality in VET in Schools delivery

               The purpose of this component is to identify those factors which are most influential on quality in
               VET in Schools, and provide an estimate of the cost of obtaining consistent and high quality in VET
               in Schools delivery. Achieving high quality VET in Schools is a critical issue for the education and
               training sector, for industry, unions and students. All parties have an interest in ensuring that VET in
               Schools programs provide equivalent quality training to VET delivered by the training sector.

5.6.1          Background
               A number of factors are commonly identified as impacting on the quality of VET in Schools. The
               report the Cost of VET in Schools48 surveyed teachers and selected unions, industry groups and
               ITABs and asked them to identify the top three factors that make the greatest contribution to the
               delivery of high quality VET in Schools. The most commonly reported factors identified by teachers
               were:
                    • The quality of teacher training;
                    • The commitment to VET in Schools by teachers and the school;
                    • Industry placement/participation.
               Although a small response rate from union, industry and ITABs did not allow strong conclusions,
               responses from these organizations did emphasis the importance of the experience and training of
               teachers, physical resources and work placements in contributing to high quality VET in Schools.
               The importance of achieving consistent and high quality delivery of VET in Schools has been
               brought into sharp focus through some recent concerns expressed by some industry sectors. ANTA,
               through the National Training Quality Council has examined these concerns and could not conclude
               that there was a substantive basis for these concerns.49 However, the report did identify a number of
               challenges facing VET in Schools including:
                    • An on-going program of quality improvement for school teachers delivering VET in
                         Schools; and
                    • A need to establish more clearly the purpose and desired outcomes of VET in Schools,
                         possibly by developing a new suite of qualifications.
               In discussing quality issues, acknowledging the complexities is important. Such complexities
               include:
                    • VET in Schools inputs can be used in different combinations to achieve quality outcomes;
                    • some suggest that the nature of VET where students aim to achieve competencies makes
                        the notion of quality difficult to conceptualise;
                    • specific input mixes may reflect different administrative arrangements for the delivery of
                        VET in Schools across States and Territories;
                    • the variety of delivery modes options; and
                    • school and student characteristics.

5.6.2          Factors that support consistent high quality VET in Schools delivery
               Existing research suggests that there are a number of key factors associated with the delivery of high
               quality VET in Schools. These are:

               Teacher professional development and training
               The ability and knowledge of teachers has a significant influence on the learning outcomes of
               students. This is true for VET in Schools as well as general education. Workplace training and
               professional development is important for the on-going development of quality teaching in VET in
               Schools. It is recognised that where teachers have completed workplace training units, their

48
     The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER (2003), op. cit., pp141-3.
49
     KPA Consulting (2003), a Report to Australian National Training Authority, Quality in VET in Schools Project, Final Report July 2003.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                       Final May 05, Page 84
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                 Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            understanding of competency based training is higher.50 As identified above, a survey of teachers
            identified that the quality of teacher training was the most important influence on the quality of VET
            in Schools.51 For VET in Schools, teacher professional development includes on-going professional
            development to allow teachers to keep up-to-date with the changes and demands of industry.

            Access to work placements for students
            Between 1996 and 2002, strong growth was recorded in students participating in work placement.
            The average number of students participating in structured workplace learning increased from
            around 27 per cent of all VET in Schools students in 1997 to more than 61 per cent in 2002 and the
            total number of hours in workplace learning increased from 2.3 million to 7.4 million in the same
            period.52 While more students are undertaking structured workplace learning as part of the VET in
            Schools program, the average number of hours per student in workplace learning has decreased from
            89 hours in 1999 to 70 hours in 2001.53
            Given the inherent industry focus of VET in Schools courses, the ability of students to access work
            placements can have a significant influence on student outcomes. Organising, co-ordinating and
            monitoring work placements involves the time of VET co-ordinators, teachers and specialist work
            placement co-ordinators.

            Maintaining up-to-date VET in Schools curriculum
            VET in Schools curriculum requires updating of course material to be consistent with changes made
            to industry Training Packages. The rate of change is reputedly greater than for general education
            subjects in the senior secondary curriculum.

            Maintaining links to industry training needs
            Maintaining links to industry provides a basis for analysis of future industry training needs, which
            can be reflected in both course content and course selection. Developing strong linkages between
            VET in Schools providers and industry also assists in other aspects of VET in Schools delivery such
            as work placements. Linkages are important at both the system and school level.

            Maintaining information on AQF credentialing and archiving
            Maintaining the credibility of qualifications earned by students of VET in Schools is important for
            the overall quality of the courses. Maintaining information on credentials ensures that industry can
            be confident of the credentials of potential employees. While such information is kept at a system
            level, there are responsibilities at the school level for the maintenance of up-to-date information.
            This includes complying with the AVETMIS Standard for VET data collection and reporting.

            Compliance with AQTF requirements
            The AQTF is the framework to ensure national consistency in VET qualifications through
            establishing prescribed standards for program implementation and assessment. It therefore underpins
            the quality of all VET, including where the school is the RTO and is directly responsible for meeting
            AQTF standards for some or all of its VET in Schools programs.

            Physical infrastructure
            While there is considerable variation in the material requirements for VET in Schools courses, it can
            be said that the majority of courses require access to some training materials, often at a level higher
            than standard courses taught in schools. The quality and accessibility of these resources is likely to
            have an influence on the overall quality of the course.



50
   KPA Consulting (2003), op. cit.
51
   The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER (2003), op. cit.
52
   MCEETYA (2003), National Data on Participation in VET in Schools Programs for the 2002 School Year; and ANTA, Future Funding Options for
VET Schools.
53
   MCEETYA (2003), op.cit.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                               Final May 05, Page 85
Resourcing The National Goals                                              Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




5.6.3      Approach
           The approach to examining what is required to achieve consistently high quality VET in Schools was
           to gather information around the key questions of:
                •     What is the relative importance of factors that influence the delivery of consistent high
                      quality in VET in Schools? and
                •     How can resources be most effectively directed to achieve high quality in VET in Schools?
           Information to help address these questions was obtained from jurisdiction members of the
           MCEETYA Transitions from Schools Taskforce through responses to a consultation paper. These
           responses provide the basis for the analysis in this chapter. All jurisdictions provided a response to
           the consultation paper.
           The questions in the consultation paper focus on the following aspects of quality in VET in Schools.
           Specifically, information was sought from the jurisdiction taskforce members on:
               • The relative importance of quality factors — this allowed quality factors (as described
                    above) to be ranked by their influence on the delivery of consistent high quality in VET in
                    Schools.
               • Weighting of quality factors — this allowed analysis of how additional resources should be
                    distributed within schools to underpin consistent high quality of VET in Schools.
               • Regional and rural VET in Schools delivery — this identified additional costs that are
                    specific to the delivery of VET in Schools in rural and regional schools.
               • Achieving consistent high quality delivery of VET in Schools — this supported analysis of
                    the quantum of resources required to achieve greater consistency in the quality of VET in
                    Schools delivery, including any differences to achieve this objective in metropolitan and
                    rural and regional schools.
               • Increasing the quality of VET in Schools — this supports analysis of the quantum of
                    resources required to achieve a 5 per cent improvement in the quality of VET in Schools
                    delivery. Again, separate estimates were requested for metropolitan and rural and regional
                    schools.

5.6.4      Key Factors for quality delivery of VET in Schools
           As discussed above, the factors that are recognised in the current research and literature to have
           significant influence on quality are:
                •     teachers professional development and training;
                •     access to work placements for students;
                •     maintaining up-to-date VET in Schools curriculum;
                •     maintaining links to industry training needs;
                •     maintaining information on AQF credentialing and archiving;
                •     complying with the AQTF requirements; and
                •     physical infrastructure.
           Of the seven quality factors identified in the consultation paper, jurisdiction taskforce members were
           invited to add other factors that they considered contributed to delivery of high quality VET in
           Schools and then to rank factors in order of their influence on quality delivery of VET in Schools.
          The results indicate that teacher professional development is the most important factor, with 75 per
           cent of respondents rating it as very important (rankings 1 and 2) and the remaining 25 per cent
           rating it as important (rankings 3 and 4). Access to work placements was also rated highly and like
           teacher professional development was always ranked as either very important or important. Physical
           infrastructure was ranked by all as either important or moderately important (rankings 5 and 6).
           There were mixed views on the relative importance for other quality factors: maintaining curriculum,
           links to industry, AQF credentialing and archiving and AQTF compliance. Each of these factors




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                         Final May 05, Page 86
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                  Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




           received rankings from very important to less important. AQF credentialing and archiving were
           generally ranked as the least important factor influencing quality (see Figure 5.3)

           Figure 5.3: Relative importance of factors influencing quality in VET in Schools




         Source: Data from consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Schools Transitions Taskforce


           In providing these rankings, jurisdiction taskforce members were invited to include additional factors
           which they considered also influenced the quality delivery of VET in Schools. Six additional factors
           were identified as affecting the quality of VET in School provision (see Table 5.16). These factors
           were generally rated as moderate or less important although two, 'equitable access to a broad range
           of appropriate VET courses' and 'schools allocating adequate time to VET in school coordination',
           were ranked as very important or important (with a ranking of 2).

           Table 5.16: Additional factors which influence quality in VET in Schools
             Factors
                  i)         Schools allocating adequate time to VET in school coordination
                  ii)        Provision of up-to-date information and support from education departments
                  iii)       Equitable access to broad range of appropriate VET courses to meet industry needs and student
                             aspirations - (eg through access to TAFE or shared delivery)
                  iv)        Smaller class sizes
                  v)         Special needs provision
                  vi)        Access in geographically isolated areas
         Source: Data from consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Schools Transitions Taskforce



           The ranking of factors provides an indication of the relative importance of factors. To provide further
           depth to the result above, taskforce members were asked to weight the factors by considering how



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                   Final May 05, Page 87
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                                   Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            they would allocate an additional 100 units of resources - with the objective of improving quality in
            VET in Schools.
            As shown in Figure 5.4, teacher professional development and training was the factor with the
            greatest average allocation of additional resources (22 per cent) - indicating that it is considered the
            activity with the greatest potential to improve the quality in VET in schools. Access to work
            placements is a clear second with 19 per cent of additional resources. These results are consistent
            with those from the ranking of factors, and also indicate that together, these two factors would
            account for 41 per cent of any additional VET in School resources.
            An interesting result is the high allocation of resources to physical infrastructure (14 per cent of
            additional resources), given its relatively lower ranking for quality. This perhaps indicates that there
            is higher level of resources necessary for physical infrastructure relative to the other factors, in order
            to achieve the same influence on quality. Additional costs for physical infrastructure are unable to be
            calculated through this analysis, due to the fact that the VET cost psh does not include this cost item.

Figure 5.4: Weighting of factors with the greatest influence on quality in VET in Schools




          Note: ‘Other’ includes Schools allocating adequate time to VET, AQF credentialing and archiving, Information and support from education
          departments, Trainer professional develoment, Access in geographically isolated areas and special needs provision. Source: Data from
          consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Transition from Schools Taskforce.

 5.6.5      Key factors influencing quality of delivery of VET in Schools in rural and regional schools
            The delivery of VET in Schools in rural and regional areas faces specific challenges associated with
            geographic location. Jurisdiction taskforce representatives were asked to identify any specific
            additional costs that schools in rural and regional areas incur for delivery of VET in Schools.
            Rural and regional schools face different challenges to those schools in metropolitan areas. These
            challenges also apply to the delivery of VET in Schools. Taskforce members were asked to identify
            the additional costs related to the delivery of VET in Schools by schools in rural and regional areas
            that are specific to the provision of VET in Schools, rather than those which are common to both
            general education and VET in Schools. Responses identified a number of cost items, but focused
            heavily on travel costs and identified multiple ways in which these costs were incurred to deliver
            VET in Schools in rural and regional locations.




 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                 Final May 05, Page 88
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                  Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




           Table 5.17: additional cost factors incurred to delivery of VET in Schools in rural and regional locations
             Factors
             •   AQTF compliance – additional travel costs and time for internal and external audits
             •   Additional time and travel costs of professional development and industry contact
             •   Additional travel cost for students, teachers and workplace coordinators for work placements
             •   Additional costs of student travel to TAFE courses or other schools to undertake courses not delivered
                 within the home school. Many VET courses (eg automotive) are delivered only by TAFE and small rural
                 schools may have insufficient numbers to form classes.
             •   There are additional resources required for finding appropriate Registered Training Organisations willing
                 to deliver training to indigenous youth in remote locations.
             •   Cost of development and curriculum provision to enable online and flexible delivery.
             •   Additional costs related to networking with the business community.
         Source: Data from consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Transition from Schools Taskforce



5.6.6      Achieving consistent quality in the delivery of VET in Schools
           As discussed above, a key issue for VET in Schools is achieving consistency in the quality of
           delivery across schools and systems. Jurisdiction taskforce members were asked to nominate the
           quantum of additional resources required to achieve a more consistent delivery of high quality VET
           in Schools for the seven identified quality factors. The possible responses were:
                • No cost increase 0%;
                • A small increase 1-5%;
                • A moderate increase 6-10%;
                • Substantial increase 10-30%; or
                • Very substantial increase more than 30%.
           Separate responses were obtained for metropolitan and rural and regional schools.

5.6.7      Survey results
           For metropolitan schools the area identified as needing the greatest additional resources was teacher
           professional development, with an estimated 16.4 per cent increase needed (see Table 5.18).
           Compared to metropolitan schools, the results identify that rural and regional schools would require
           a notably higher level of resourcing to improve consistency in the quality of VET in School delivery
           in the areas of compliance with AQTF requirements and maintaining information on AQF
           credentialing and archiving, and maintaining links to industry training needs.

           Table 5.18: Required Increase in resources to achieve consistent quality in VET in Schools
                                                                                             Increase in resources to achieve
                                                                                                  consistent quality (%)

                                                                                           Metropolitan            Rural and Regional
                                                                                            Schools                     Schools
             Teacher professional development and training                              Substantial -16.4%         Moderate - 9.7%
             Access to work placements for students                                     Moderate - 8.9%            Moderate - 8.6%
             Maintaining up-to-date VET in Schools curriculum                           Small - 3.5%               Small - 4.0%
             Maintaining links to industry training needs                               Moderate - 5.4%            Moderate - 8.6%
             Maintaining information on AQF credentialing and archiving                 Small - 2.9%               Moderate - 5.1%
             Compliance with AQTF requirements                                          Moderate 7.3%              Substantial 15.4%
             Physical infrastructure                                                    Moderate 7.8%              Moderate 6.9%
         Source: Data from consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Transition from Schools Taskforce.

5.6.8      Implications for resourcing
           These estimates of necessary increases in resources to achieve consistent quality in VET in Schools
           can be applied to cost data from the Cost of VET in Schools report to provide a dollar estimate of


Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                Final May 05, Page 89
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                                        Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




              total additional expenditure. This is done using estimates for total cost of VET in Schools per student
              hour and applying the percentage increases for the quality factors in Table 5.18.54
              The results show that in metropolitan schools the cost of achieving greater consistency in the quality
              of VET in School delivery is $0.13 psh or a 2 per cent increase in the total psh cost. As expected, the
              cost to achieve the same outcome is higher in rural and regional schools where it is estimated that to
              achieve the same outcome would require $0.16 psh or a 2.5 per cent increase in the total psh cost. As
              noted previously, the VET cost psh does not include the costs of physical infrastructure and therefore
              additional costs for physical infrastructure are not reflected in the results in Table 5.19 or Table 5.20.

Table 5.19: Direct cost of achieving consistent quality in delivery in VET in Schools - Metropolitan schools
                                                                                           Current cost           $ increase        Updated Cost

                                                                                                  psh                 psh                  psh
                Teacher professional development and training                                    $ 0.15              $ 0.02               $ 0.17
                Access to work placements for students                                           $ 0.51              $ 0.05               $ 0.56
                Maintaining up-to-date VET in Schools curriculum                                 $ 0.16              $ 0.01               $ 0.17
                Maintaining links to industry training needs                                     $ 0.54              $ 0.03               $ 0.57
                Maintaining information on AQF credentialing and
                archiving                                                                        $ 0.11               $0.00                $0.11
                Compliance with AQTF requirements                                                $ 0.26               $0.02                $0.28
                Physical infrastructure
                Total cost for quality factors                                                    $1.73               $0.13                $1.86
                Total Cost per student hour                                                       $6.41               $0.13                $6.54
            Source: The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER, The Cost of VET in Schools: An analysis of the costs of
            delivering VET in Schools including an analysis of cost efficiencies, Final Report to the Department of Education, Science and Training,
            June 2003 and data from consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Transition from Schools Taskforce.


Table 5.20: Direct cost of achieving consistent quality in delivery in VET in Schools - Rural and Regional schools
                                                                                    Current cost             $ increase            Updated Cost
                Teacher professional development and training                             $0.15                   $0.01                  $0.16
                Access to work placements for students                                    $0.51                   $0.04                  $0.55
                Maintaining up-to-date VET in Schools curriculum                          $0.16                   $0.01                  $0.17
                Maintaining links to industry training needs                              $0.54                   $0.05                  $0.59
                Maintaining information on AQF credentialing and                          $0.11                   $0.01                  $0.12
                archiving
                Compliance with AQTF requirements                                         $0.26                   $0.04                  $0.30
                Physical infrastructure
                Total                                                                     $1.73                   $0.16                  $1.89
                Total cost per student hour                                               $6.41                   $0.16                  $6.57
            Source: The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER, The Cost of VET in Schools: An analysis of the costs of
            delivering VET in Schools including an analysis of cost efficiencies, Final Report to the Department of Education, Science and Training,
            June 2003 and data from consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Transition from Schools Taskforce.


              The implications of an increase in the cost psh of delivering consistent high quality VET in Schools
              can be seen by examining the impacts that this additional cost would have on the results of the
              scenarios in chapter 4. A weighted average of metropolitan and rural and regional resources to
              achieve consistent high quality delivery of VET in Schools is $0.14.55
              The cost differential per student hour between the Base cost and the VET in School delivery cost
              would increase to $1.12 (see Table 5.21). This is a substantial increase and the impact on the
              resource requirements in 2010 are in Table 5.22. For example, in scenario 1 the resources to achieve
              current quality in 2010 were estimated to be $31.8 million in 2001 increasing to $56.4 million in
              2010. If additional resources were provided to achieve consistent high quality delivery of VET in

 54
   Data of total cost per student hour is derived from The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER (2003), op. cit.
 55
   The weighted average is based on 65% of schools being located in major cities and 35% being located outside major cities which is consistent with
 the location of teaching staff (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends 2003).



 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                       Final May 05, Page 90
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                        Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            Schools the resource requirements would be $36.4 million in 2001 increasing to $64.4 million in
            2010.

Table 5.21: Direct cost differential between senior secondary Base cost psh and VET in Schools psh to achieve
           consistent high quality delivery
                 SS –Base cost psh               Scenario 1 - VET in      VET in Schools cost          Cost differential SS –
                                                  Schools cost psh          psh to achieve             Base cost and VET in
                                                                         consistent high quality           Schools psh
                                                                                delivery

                         $5.43                          $6.41                     $6.55                         $1.12
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group


Table 5.22: Comparison of the school level resources to achieve current quality and consistent high quality delivery
           of VET in Schools, 2001 and 2010
              Scenario                         Resources to achieve current quality       Resources to achieve consistent
                                                              ($m)                              high quality ($m)
                                                    2001                2010                 2001               2010

              1 – Base case                          31.8               56.4                  36.4                  64.4
              2 – Increasing retention               31.8                69                   36.4                  78.9
              rate
              3 – Increasing VET in                  31.8               82.7                  36.4                  94.6
              School hours
              4 – Increased uptake of                31.8               97.3                  36.4                  109.5
              high level certificates
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group


 5.7        Detailed Findings - (iv) Increasing quality of delivery in VET in Schools

            This section considers the quantum of additional resources needed to achieve an across the board
            increase in quality. Jurisdiction taskforce members were asked to consider the necessary increase in
            resources to achieve a 5 per cent increase in quality in VET in Schools. As for the question about
            consistency above, possible responses were:
                 • No cost increase 0%;
                 • A small increase 1-5%;
                 • A moderate increase 6-10%;
                 • Substantial increase 10-30%; or
                 • Very substantial increase more than 30%.

 5.7.1      Survey result
            Table 5.2.3 indicates that, for metropolitan schools, the key factor identified for achieving increased
            quality was access to work placements. This was allocated a considerably higher increase than any
            other factor. These results differ to those reported above in relation to obtaining consistent high
            quality delivery of VET in Schools where teacher professional development and training was clearly
            the most significant factor. Rural and regional schools were identified as needing a greater increase
            in resources to achieve an increase in quality than metropolitan schools, except for physical
            infrastructure. Specifically, in rural and regional schools, four factors - teacher professional
            development, access to work placement, compliance with AQTF and maintaining links to industry
            training needs - were all considered to require a substantial increase in resources to achieve a 5 per
            cent increase in quality.




 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                   Final May 05, Page 91
 Resourcing The National Goals                                                                      Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




            Table 5.23: Required increase in resources to achieve a 5 per cent improvement in quality in VET in
            Schools

                                                                                                    Increase in resources to achieve
                                                                                                         consistent quality (%)

                                                                                              Metropolitan             Rural and Regional
                                                                                               Schools                      Schools
              Teacher professional development and training                               Moderate - 8.4%             Substantial - 11.4%
              Access to work placements for students                                      Substantial -14.1%          Substantial - 11.4%
              Maintaining up-to-date VET in Schools curriculum                            Small - 4.3%                Moderate - 5.7%
              Maintaining links to industry training needs                                Moderate - 5.3%             Substantial - 10.3%
              Maintaining information on AQF credentialing & archiving                    Small - 3.6%                Moderate - 5.1%
              Compliance with AQTF requirements                                           Moderate - 8.3%             Substantial - 10.9%
              Physical infrastructure                                                     Moderate - 8.4%             Small - 1.2%
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER, The Cost of VET in Schools: An analysis of the costs of
          delivering VET in Schools including an analysis of cost efficiencies, Final Report to the Department of Education, Science and Training,
          June 2003 and data from consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Transition from Schools Taskforce.

 5.7.2      Implications for resourcing
            As with the assessment of consistent quality in VET in Schools, these estimates for an increase in
            quality in VET in Schools can be applied to cost data to get an estimate of the necessary increase in
            expenditure.
            Table 5.24 and Table 5.25 indicate the cost implications of the necessary increases in resources
            identified in Table 5.23. There is a slightly higher cost increase required for rural and regional
            schools, with the main difference being greater resources required for maintaining links to industry.
            The results show that in metropolitan schools the cost of achieving a 5 per cent increase in the
            quality of VET in School delivery is $0.15 psh. Again, the cost to achieve the same outcome is
            higher in rural and regional schools where it is estimated at $0.17 psh. As discussed earlier in the
            report, the VET cost psh does not include the costs of physical infrastructure and therefore additional
            costs for physical infrastructure are not reflected in the results in table 5.9 and 5.10.

Table 5.24: Direct cost of increasing quality in delivery in VET in Schools - Metropolitan schools
                                                                                  Current cost            $ increase          Updated Cost
              Teacher professional development and training                                  $ 0.15                $ 0.01                $ 0.16
              Access to work placements for students                                         $ 0.51                $ 0.07                $ 0.58
              Maintaining up-to-date VET in Schools curriculum                               $ 0.16                $ 0.01                $ 0.17
              Maintaining links to industry training needs                                   $ 0.54                $ 0.03                $ 0.57
              Maintaining information on AQF credentialing and
              archiving                                                                      $ 0.11                $ 0.00                $ 0.11
              Compliance with AQTF requirements                                              $ 0.26                $ 0.02                $ 0.28
              Physical infrastructure
              Total                                                                          $1.73                  $0.15                 $1.88
              Total cost per student hour                                                    $6.41                  $0.15                 $6.56
          Source: The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER, The Cost of VET in Schools: An analysis of the costs of
          delivering VET in Schools including an analysis of cost efficiencies, Final Report to the Department of Education, Science and Training,
          June 2003 and data from consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Transition from Schools Taskforce. Increase data
          provided by members of the MCEETYA Schools Transitions Taskforce.




 Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05, Page 92
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                      Additional Resourcing Need: VET in Schools




           Table 5.25: Direct cost of increasing quality in delivery in VET in Schools - Rural and Regional schools

                                                                                 Current cost             $ increase            Updated Cost
             Teacher professional development and training                             $ 0.15                 $ 0.02                  $ 0.17
             Access to work placements for students                                    $ 0.51                 $ 0.06                  $ 0.57
             Maintaining up-to-date VET in Schools curriculum                          $ 0.16                 $ 0.01                  $ 0.17
             Maintaining links to industry training needs                              $ 0.54                 $ 0.06                  $ 0.60
             Maintaining information on AQF credentialing and
             archiving                                                                 $ 0.11                 $ 0.01                  $ 0.12
             Compliance with AQTF requirements                                         $ 0.26                 $ 0.03                  $ 0.29
             Physical infrastructure
             Total                                                                     $1.73                   $0.17                  $1.90
             Total cost per student hour                                               $6.41                   $0.17                  $6.58
         Source: The Allen Consulting Group, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, NCVER, The Cost of VET in Schools: An analysis of the costs of
         delivering VET in Schools including an analysis of cost efficiencies, Final Report to the Department of Education, Science and Training,
         June 2003 and data from consultation with jurisdiction representatives on the MCEETYA Transition from Schools Taskforce.


           As with the analysis of achieving consistently high quality, the implications of an increase in the cost
           psh of delivering higher quality VET in Schools can be seen by examining the impacts that this
           additional cost would have on the results of the scenarios mentioned above. A weighted average of
           metropolitan and rural and regional resources to achieve consistent high quality delivery of VET in
           Schools is $0.16.
           The cost differential per student hour between the Base cost and the VET in School delivery cost
           would increase to $1.14. The impact on the resource requirements in 2010 are in Table 5.26. For
           example, in scenario 1 the resources to achieve current quality in 2010 were estimated to be $31.8
           million in 2001 increasing to $56.4 million in 2010. If additional resources were provided to achieve
           consistent high quality delivery of VET in Schools the resource requirements would be $37.0 million
           in 2001 increasing to $65.6 million in 2010.

           Table 5.26: Comparison of the school level resources to achieve current quality and a 5 per cent increase
                      in quality delivery of VET in Schools, 2001 and 2010

             Scenario                              Resources to achieve current                    Resources to achieve consistent high
                                                             quality                                           quality ($m)
                                                              ($m)
                                                      2001              2010                               2001                       2010
             1 – Base case                            31.8               56.4                              37.0                       65.6
             2 – Increasing retention                 31.8                69                               37.0                       80.3
             rate
             3 – Increasing VET in                      31.8                      82.7                     37.0                        96.2
             School hours
             4 – Increased uptake of                    31.8                      97.3                     37.0                       111.2
             high level certificates
         Source: The Allen Consulting Group




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05, Page 93
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                             Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




Chapter 6 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


                                                                            Key Findings
                  Total Current ICT Costs
                     • The total national expenditure by jurisdictions on ICT in government schools for 2003 was $545m, comprising
                       Connectivity ($466m), Content ($28m)56 and Professional Development ($51m).
                     • The total expenditure and the per-student expenditure grew at an average annual rate of 16% (excluding
                       Professional Development) over the period 2001 -2003.
                     • The national per-student average ICT expenditure for 2003 was $241.
                  Future ICT Costs
                     • Future costs were estimated by the following three complementary methods:
                           o     For reference, future ICT costs were first estimated on the basis of projections from historical costs
                           o     Jurisdiction predictions based on known costs and needs were then compiled
                           o     Additional requirements to enable the achievement of the National Goals were broadly identified, and an
                                 independent estimate of the cost was developed.
                     • The figure below indicates the comparison between these estimates

                               Figure 6.1: Estimated National ICT Expenditure ($m)


                               1,200
                                                                                                1,030
                               1,000
                                                                                                        871
                                                                              802         772
                                800
                                                          650         650           670             693            Historical Projection
                                                                638
                                600    545 545 545
                                                                                                                   Jurisdiction Estimate
                                                                                                                   Independent Estimate
                                400

                                200

                                  0
                                           2003             2004                2005               2006




                  Future Additional Resourcing Need
                     • Based on the independent estimate of total required future resources, an estimate was made of the cost of the
                       future Additional Resourcing Need arising from the target of achieving the National Goals for Schooling.

                               Table 6.1: Additional resources required for achievement of the National Goals




56
     In addition there was a Commonwealth contribution of $7.3m to The Le@rning Federation.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                       Final May 05, Page 94
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                    Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




                                                                                              2003         2004         2005         2006
                    Expenditure for achievement of National Goals ($m p.a.)                   545          650          738          871
                    Additional Resourcing over 2003 level ($m p.a.)                                        105          227          326
                    Per-Student Average Resourcing ($ p.a.)                                   241          287          341          385
                    Additional Per-Student Resourcing over 2003 level ($ p.a.)                              46          100          144
                    Increase on 2003 expenditure                                                           19%          42%          60%


6.1         Introduction

            This section is based upon a report commissioned by the SRT in 2003 57 on the current and future
            costs of information and communications technologies (ICT) in Australian government schools. The
            SRT secretariat provided detailed terms of reference specifying a recommended analytical approach
            and methodology which was largely followed by the contractors with some minor and useful
            modifications. The focus of enquiry for this report was on the cost of the ICT related future
            Additional Resourcing Need (future ARN) for assisting all students to attain the National Goals for
            Schooling. Resource implications were examined only as far as ICT relates to the costs of teaching
            and learning in schools - not the costs of ICT in general central or school level administration.

            Current requirements, historical trends and costs were studied for three main Priority Areas,
            endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
            (MCEETYA) in 2000:
                • Connectivity issues
                • Online Content, and
                • Professional Development.

            A view was developed of future ICT provisions, with associated costs, in the three Priority Areas
            which would be required to enable achievement of the National Goals for Schooling within a
            planning horizon of two to three years.

6.1.1       Methodology

            Priority Areas
            Both current and future cost and resourcing requirements were studied for three main Priority Areas:
                 • Connectivity issues
                 • Online Content, and
                 • Professional Development.

            Resource implications were examined only as far as ICT relates to the costs of teaching and learning
            in schools. Costs of ICT in general administration at the central or school level were not included in
            the study. Both capital and recurrent costs were included. The cost of telephone communications was
            not studied, since it had been included in Stage 1 of the project.
            The study did not encompass Catholic Schools or Independent Schools.

            The Current Situation and Future Requirements
            The current situation and future requirements were considered for ICT in schools.
            Analysis of the current situation at a national level for each of the three Priority Areas (Connectivity,
            Content and Professional Development) included a statement of the policy framework, a statement of
            the current major issues driving change in the provision and use of ICT in schools; and costs for each
            Priority Area.

57
  Consultel IT&T Pty Ltd (2004, unpublished) Resourcing the National Goals for Schooling - Information and Communications Technologies in
Schools, March



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                Final May 05, Page 95
Resourcing The National Goals                                                 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


           A view was then developed of future ICT provisions in the three Priority Areas which would be
           required to enable achievement of the National Goals for Schooling within a planning horizon of two
           to three years.

           Consultations
           Contacts for each jurisdiction, nominated by the SRT Steering Committee, were requested to provide
           data, and were visited by the project team. A meeting of Chief Information Officers was attended, in
           addition to a half day technical workshop convened in Sydney with representatives of all
           jurisdictions except the Northern Territory. Representatives from the following were also consulted:
                •     The Le@rning Federation
                •     Centre For Teaching and Learning Technology
                •     MCEETYA ICT in Schools Taskforce and
                •     MCEETYA Taskforce on Indigenous Education, Employment, Training and Youth.

           Assumptions and Limitations
           Several factors applying across the sector affected the clear and accurate presentation of costs:

           Structural Issues
           In most jurisdictions, the relevant Government Department had a range of responsibilities extending
           beyond schools, and it was difficult in some cases to accurately separate some central cost items such
           as, for example, sector-wide Internet contracts, shared between administrative areas of departments
           and schools.

           Accounting Methods
           Data provided by jurisdictions was a mix of cash and accrual accounting, and a mix of academic year
           and financial year data, although this was interpreted in terms of calendar years.

           Budgets for schools provided useful information on resourcing intentions. However, in most if not
           all jurisdictions, school principals had wide discretion as to the actual use of resources, so that
           budgets did not reliably indicate ICT costs.

           The charts of accounts used to capture details of expenditure in schools were in most cases structured
           along traditional lines and were unable to provide useful information on ICT costs. School ICT
           infrastructure generally supports both administrative and teaching activities.

           The breakdown of capital and recurrent costs was considered, however the majority of expenditure
           was found to be recurrent since in most cases equipment was leased, and salaries, software, network
           services and consumables were treated as non-capital expenses. Therefore no distinction was made
           between capital and non-capital expenses for this report.

           Costs for Professional Development
           Whilst costs (or budgets) for ICT-related Professional Development were able to be provided by
           jurisdictions for most centrally-funded programs and initiatives, it was generally the case that the
           extent of school expenditure on Professional Development was not being systematically reported,
           nor the proportion which relates to ICT.

           Categorising Cost Items
           There were some instances where cost items could not be divided in a simple way, and some
           compromise was involved, as in the following examples:
               • Costs for trials of access to digital content were regarded as primarily for infrastructure and
                    communications, and therefore attributed to Connectivity.
               • In some projects where digital content was being developed, there was a significant
                    associated benefit in terms of professional development. The costs of these projects were
                    however attributed to Content, but because of low teacher numbers, this effect was
                    considered to be small.


Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                          Final May 05, Page 96
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                           Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


                    •     A single total for school and central software costs was presented as an element of
                          Connectivity.
                    •     Software of a general or administrative nature was not considered relevant, but software
                          identified as being associated with student information systems was included on the basis
                          that it is intimately related to teaching and learning.

             Student and Teacher Numbers
             As a basis for calculating per-student costs, the study used the MCEETYA 58 primary and secondary
             FTE enrolment totals for 2001 and 2002. For 2003 the study used an average of MCEETYA’s
             numbers for 2002 and 2003. Teacher numbers used to determine average expenditure on
             Professional Development were from the same MCEETYA report.

             Analysis of Historical Cost Data
             Connectivity, Content and Professional Development cost totals and trends were developed for the
             three years 2001, 2002 and 2003.
             All eight jurisdictions were able to provide historical cost data for 2003 in the available time, but
             only five for 2002, and four for 2001. To preserve trends, annual averages of later year costs were
             included in the Cost Summary Tables in earlier years where data were not provided 59. The
             assumption implicit in this method of assessing trends where averages are used is that of zero annual
             variation: that is, the trend is flat. Thus although variations may not be seen in items for which
             averages have been included, importantly the actual variations inherent in the given data have been
             brought into clear view.

             Estimations of Future Costs60
             Future costs were estimated using three complementary methods:

             (i) Projections from Historical Costs
             A view of future costs was developed for reference by projecting the historical costs on the
             assumption that average cost trends for 2001-2003 would remain unchanged between 2004 and
             2006. Each cost element of Priority Areas was projected at its three-year average growth rate, and
             then the elements were added to give an annual total.

             (ii) Analysis of Jurisdiction Data on Future Costs
             All jurisdictions provided estimates of known costs associated with current plans for 2004. Six
             jurisdictions provided estimates for 2005 and 2006 for known costs for current plans, and predicted 61
             expenditure for 2004-2006 comprising additional resourcing requirements for existing programs and
             for new initiatives not yet appearing in approved budgets. Predicted cost data were rationalised by
             removing any repetition of known cost items and ensuring that only additional costs were included.
             Known and predicted jurisdiction costs for each year were added, and the sum was scaled on the
             basis of student numbers62 to produce an estimated national total for each year. No account was
             taken of inflation.

             (iii) Independent Estimate of Future Costs
             Information provided by jurisdictions on current and future plans and costs was reviewed with
             reference to agreed national goals and strategies to independently develop indicative future cost
             estimates.




58
   MCEETYA (2001/2002) - National Schools Statistics Collection, Provisional (unpublished) report. Summary Tables 4.1 to 4.5.
59
   Additional details appear in Appendix 6
60
   Additional detail appears in Section 6.7, below.
61
   Jurisdictions were asked to base predictions on the premise of meeting the national goals for schooling without regard to current budget constraints.
62
    MCEETYA (2001/2002), op. cit.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                         Final May 05, Page 97
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                     Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


6.1.2       Policy Background for ICT in Schools

            National Policy63
            The study analysed data in the light of policies which have particular significance for ICT in schools.
            These included the National Goals for Schooling64 (the Adelaide Declaration), the MCEETYA
            Ministers’ Joint Statement on Education and Training in the Information Economy65, and Learning
            In An Online World: The School Action Plan For The Information Economy66.
            Learning in an Online World affirms the highest priorities for schools to be Bandwidth, Professional
            Development, and Online Content.

            Jurisdiction Policy
            Those strategic plans and policies that were made available for this study were invariably provided
            on a confidential basis, reflecting in some cases sensitivities associated with the documents, and in
            other cases uncertainties concerning the impact of budget or staff changes or the outlook for final
            approval. However no significant inconsistencies with the broad framework of the national policies
            mentioned above were identified.

6.1.3       Issues Driving Change for ICT in Schools
            Changing approaches to pedagogy and opportunities to take advantage of new technologies are
            driving the increased use of ICT in schools. Among others, the following67 are particularly
            important:
                 • Implementation of Online Learning
                 • Increasing Use of the Internet
                 • New Knowledge and Skills
                 • Broadband Wide Area Networking
                 • Technological and Market Changes




63
   Additional details appear in Appendix 6
64
   MCEETYA (1999) The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century
65
   MCEETYA (2000) Ministers Joint Statement on Education and Training in the Information Economy, December
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/ministers/kemp/dec00/k0249_061200.htm
66
   EdNA Schools Advisory Group (2000) Learning in an online world: the school education action plan for the information economy
http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/file12665
67
   Additional details appear in Appendix 6



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                 Final May 05, Page 98
Resourcing The National Goals                                                             Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




6.2        Priority Area – Connectivity



                                              Key Findings for Connectivity

                  •   The total national reported expenditure on Connectivity for 2003 was $466m.
                  •   The national per-student average expenditure for 2003 was $206.
                  •   The per-student expenditure for 2001-2003 grew at an average rate of 14%
                  •   The distribution of Connectivity-related expenditure for 2003 was as follows:



                       Figure 6.2: Connectivity - National expenditure allocation for 2003 ($m)




                                                                                School Infrastructure
                                     $16.2 $4.2                                 WAN/VPN
                                $34.1
                                                                                ICT Support
                         $52.5                                                  Centralised ICT
                                                        $195.8
                                                                                Software
                         $74.0                                                  Internet
                                                                                Other
                                      $89.4




                          Figure 6.3: Connectivity - National expenditure allocation for 2003 (%)




                                                                                School Infrastructure
                                     3%       1%                                WAN/VPN
                                7%
                                                                                ICT Support
                        11%
                                                                                Centralised ICT
                                                        43%
                                                                                Software
                         16%                                                   Internet
                                                                               Other
                                      19%




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                      Final May 05, Page 99
Resourcing The National Goals                                                     Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


6.2.1           Elements and Costs of Connectivity
                A total cost estimate for Connectivity in schools was developed on the basis of the following broad
                groupings68:
                    • ICT infrastructure in schools;
                    • Wide-area network services;
                    • ICT support in schools;
                    • Centralised ICT infrastructure and services;
                    • Software; and
                    • Internet services.
                The growth trend for 2001-2003 averaged 14% per annum. This trend was derived from a relatively
                broad base of numbers, and generally reflects the underlying growth trends in the component
                groupings as is seen from the annual breakdown and the accompanying table (Figure 6.4and Table
                6.2, below).

                Figure 6.4: Connectivity - National expenditure annual breakdown ($m)

                           500
                                                                          466
                           450                                                      Other

                                                           393                      Internet
                           400
                                         360                                        Software
                           350
                                                                                    Centralised ICT
                           300
                                                                                    ICT Support
                           250
                                                                                    WAN/VPN
                           200                                                      School
                                                                                    Infrastructure
                           150

                           100

                            50

                              0
                                         2001              2002           2003




                Table 6.2: Connectivity - National expenditure annual breakdown ($m)
                                                                  2001           2002                     2003
                   School Infrastructure                          164.9          189.8                    195.8
                   WAN/VPN                                         42.9           47.6                     89.4
                   ICT Support                                     72.3           71.8                     74.0
                   Centralised ICT                                 35.9           36.6                     52.5
                   Software                                        30.3           31.4                     34.1
                   Internet                                        10.1           11.5                     16.2
                   Other                                           3.0            3.8                      4.2
                   Total Of Connectivity                           360            393                      466

                All jurisdictions reported increasing expenditure on connectivity, but significant differences between
                jurisdictions were seen in the per-student averages by jurisdiction for 2003. These averages spanned
                a range from $135 to $406 per student per annum, and average expenditure generally decreased with

68
     These are described in greater detail in Appendix 6



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                Final May 05, Page 100
Resourcing The National Goals                                                     Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


               increasing jurisdiction enrolments. In this context it needs to be borne in mind that a lower figure
               does not necessarily imply a lower standard of infrastructure.

               Figure 6.5: Connectivity - National average cost per student ($)

                                         $250
                                                                                          206
                                         $200                         173
                                                       159
                                         $150


                                         $100

                                          $50


                                           $0
                                                       2001           2002                2003


.
               The six groupings comprising the Connectivity cost are discussed below.

6.2.2          ICT Infrastructure in Schools
               The cost of infrastructure in schools was principally associated with computers, other terminals such
               as printers and scanners, and local area networks comprising cabling, hubs, switches, servers, proxy
               servers and routers 69. There was a variety of other equipment, mostly network-connected, which
               represented a small proportion of the overall total.

               Cost of ICT Infrastructure in Schools
               Total reported national expenditure on ICT infrastructure in schools for 2003 was $195.8m, while
               the per-student expenditure on infrastructure in schools grew at an average annual rate of 9.0%.

               Figure 6.6: ICT Infrastructure in Schools - National average cost per student


                                 $150



                                 $100                           84                  86
                                                73


                                   $50



                                    $0
                                                2001           2002                2003




69
     Additional detail appears in Appendix 6



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                             Final May 05, Page 101
Resourcing The National Goals                                                    Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




6.2.3          Wide Area Networks
               Costs for wide area networks 70 comprise Access Network telecommunications costs and VPN-
               related costs.
               Total reported national expenditure on networks including VPN costs for 2003 was $89.4m. The
               national per-student average cost of networks for 2001-2003 is as shown in the figure below.
               The large expenditure on both access bandwidth and VPN implementation produced a strong cost
               increase in this element of connectivity, almost all in 2003.

               Figure 6.7: Wide Area Networks - National average cost per student




                                       $50
                                                                                        39
                                       $40

                                       $30
                                               19                  21
                                       $20

                                       $10

                                        $0
                                               2001               2002                  2003




               The average growth rate for 2001-2003 was 44%, but an increase of 88% was reported in 2003,
               reflecting the rollout of broadband services to large numbers of schools in most jurisdictions in the
               last two years.

6.2.4          ICT Support in Schools
               Total reported national expenditure on ICT support in schools for 2003 was $74.0m.
               The national per-student average for 2001-2003 is as shown in Figure 6.8, below:

               Figure 6.8: ICT Support in Schools - National average cost per student




                                         $50

                                         $40
                                                32                  32                    33
                                         $30

                                         $20

                                         $10

                                          $0
                                                2001               2002                  2003




               Negligible growth was reported in support costs for 2001-2003.
               The stability of support costs appears to reflect the practice in most jurisdictions of maintaining
               relatively fixed support staff numbers which serve particular geographical areas, resulting in costs
               which do not change in response to marginal changes in demand for support services. Nevertheless

70
     Additional detail appears in Appendix 6



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                            Final May 05, Page 102
Resourcing The National Goals                                                     Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


               jurisdictions generally reported difficulties in providing adequate ICT support for systems and for
               teachers, with some jurisdictions evaluating centralised remote management techniques with the
               potential to significantly reduce routine systems administration costs. It is important to note that it
               can be difficult to separate ICT support between school and central levels. There can be significantly
               different practices across states in how the ICT support for schools is delivered and this can
               significantly affect cost calculations.

6.2.5          Centralised ICT Infrastructure and Services

               Total reported national expenditure on centralised infrastructure and services for 2003 was $52.5m.
               The national per-student average cost of centralised infrastructure and services for 2001-2003 is as
               shown in Figure 6.9, below:

               Figure 6.9: Centralised Infrastructure & Services - National average cost per student

                                       $30
                                                                                        23

                                       $20
                                               16                   16


                                       $10



                                         $0
                                               2001                2002                2003




               Significant expenditure was reported on centralised shared ICT infrastructure and online services
               delivered to schools via WANs and VPNs. These costs are associated with a wide range of projects
               which have not been reviewed in detail, but were reported by jurisdictions as being ultimately
               associated with delivery of services at the school level, and have therefore been included in the
               Connectivity cost in this report.

               The average growth rate for 2001-2003 was 21%, but a substantial increase was reported in 2003,
               which appears to reflect the adoption of VPNs and a centralised approach to delivery and
               management of information and services to teachers, students, and school networks in most
               jurisdictions.

6.2.6          Software
               Software costs arise at the school level for school computers, servers, and proxy servers. Centralised
               systems including major software platforms are used to support access and to deliver services to
               schools71.

               The costs of software relating to teaching and learning were regarded as relevant to the study, but not
               costs associated with software for general administration at a school or central level.72

               Computer software licences including Windows and basic applications are closely related prima
               facie to the costs of school ICT infrastructure. However, since in most jurisdictions the



71
     Additional detail appears in Appendix 6
72
     Additional detail appears in Appendix 6



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                             Final May 05, Page 103
Resourcing The National Goals                                                        Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


               corresponding fees were negotiated and funded centrally, a single total for the cost of school and
               central software is presented.

               Total reported national expenditure on software for 2003 was $34.1m.

               The national per-student average cost of software for 2001-2003 is as shown in Figure 6.10, below:

               Figure 6.10: Software - National average cost per student ($)

                                        $20
                                                                                           15
                                        $15          13              14

                                        $10

                                         $5

                                         $0
                                                 2001                2002                 2003


               Growth in reported software expenditure for 2001 - 2003 was 6.1%.

               Software licensing costs in some jurisdictions are based on a notional number of users, so that the
               recent growth in computers in schools did not lead to a significant increase in related software costs
               in those cases.

6.2.7          Internet Services 73
               A variety of approaches to Internet service provision was reported. In most cases, Internet access is
               being provided under jurisdiction-wide contracts, while in some jurisdictions, commercial
               arrangements are made by some schools on their own behalf. Wherever access bandwidth is being
               increased, large growth in download volumes is also being experienced, with the potential for
               corresponding cost increases. Student demand for Internet access is now being actively managed.
               Changing classroom practices linked to the use of the internet are also generating cost pressures on
               school level infrastructure such as cabling and power supply. A single power point for a classroom is
               not a contemporary design standard.

               Total reported national expenditure on Internet charges for 2003 was $16.2m.

               The national per-student average cost for Internet charges for 2001-2003 is as shown in Figure 6.11:

               Figure 6.11: Internet charges - National average cost per student

                                      $10

                                                                                   7.1

                                                               5.1
                                       $5      4.5




                                       $0
                                               2001           2002                 2003



               The average growth rate for 2001-2003 was 26%.

73
     Additional details appear in Appendix 6



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                Final May 05, Page 104
Resourcing The National Goals                                              Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




           The average cost increased substantially in the same period when broadband access was being
           implemented widely. Although very large increases in download volumes were reported, the cost
           increase was limited by the low rates delivered by jurisdiction-wide contracts, and by the fact that
           most such contracts were based on a fixed price for a notional annual volume.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                      Final May 05, Page 105
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                   Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




6.3         Priority Area - Content



                                                      Key Findings for Content

                    •    Total national expenditure reported by jurisdictions on Content Development for 2003 was $27.9m.
                    •    This figure excludes the Commonwealth Government and New Zealand Government contributions to
                         the Le@rning Federation, which for 2002/3 were $7.4m and $1.21m respectively.
                    •    The national per-student average expenditure for 2003 was $12.30 (excluding Commonwealth and
                         New Zealand contributions to the Le@rning Federation which together amounted to $3.80 per student
                         in calendar year 2003).
                    •    The per-student expenditure for 2001-2003 grew at an average rate of 96%:




6.3.1       A Framework for Development and Use of Digital Content
            Learning In An Online World: The School Action Plan For The Information Economy74 sets out
            goals and a strategic framework for e-learning in Australia. The forthcoming Contemporary
            Learning – Learning in an online world 2003-0675 will also deal with content issues under the
            heading of Curriculum Resources and Services.

6.3.2       Online Content
            In this study, references to online content refer to specialised digital resources accessible by teachers
            and students through a computer-based interface, and the study did not distinguish between content
            which is accessed locally and that accessed remotely through wide-area networks.

            Content from the Le@rning Federation76
            The Le@rning Federation is a major national initiative for development of online educational
            content and is intended to be a key source of specialised digital content in the early twenty-first
            century77.

            Content produced by the Le@rning Federation in the form of learning objects is being compiled in a
            central online repository for online access by all states and territories. Each jurisdiction is
            responsible for the development of the infrastructure to deliver the learning object to its schools.

            Following work by the Le@rning Federation Steering Group during 2003 on issues78 relating to
            sustainable development of content beyond 2005, AESOC agreed to forward to MCEETYA for
            consideration a proposed Content Strategy79 and a range of funding models taking into account a
            recently commissioned study80 on the cost-effectiveness of shared development of content.

            All jurisdictions contribute financially to The Le@rning Federation, and their reported contributions
            are included in the Australian school sector costs presented below. In addition, resources are
            received from the Commonwealth and from the Government of New Zealand, increasing cost-
            effectiveness for jurisdictions. There are two other important sources of digital content: the teachers
            and students in Australian schools, and the content development initiatives of jurisdictions.


74
   EdNA Schools Advisory Group (2000) Learning in an online world: the school education action plan for the information economy
http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/file12665
75
   To be published by MCETYA in 2004
76
   Additional detail appears in Appendix 6
77
   The Le@rning Federation (2003) Phase Two Plan 2003-2006
78 The Le@rning Federation Steering Group (2003) Sustainable Provision of Online Curriculum Content Beyond 2005, November
 www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/repo/cms2/tlf/published/9929/sustainable_provision.pdf
79
   AESOC (2004, unpublished) Agenda Item 3.11, Content Strategy - Learning In An Online World
80
   Murray, C., (2004) Cost-Effectiveness Of Shared Development Of Online Curriculum Content Beyond 2005, The Le@rning Federation, January



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                             Final May 05, Page 106
Resourcing The National Goals                                                Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


           Content Produced by Teachers and Students
           The importance of capturing the wide range of educational material already being produced in
           schools by teachers and students is well recognised in the sector. The development and deployment
           of tools to facilitate the capture, indexing, compilation and bringing online of this material being
           created in schools on a daily basis is regarded by many as of importance comparable with the more
           specialised and more focused products from The Le@rning Federation. At present the tools required
           to achieve this are still emerging and not in wide use.

           Content Developed by Jurisdictions
           Trials have taken place of The Le@rning Federation products in each jurisdiction both in respect of
           the first-release digital learning objects themselves, and the trial hosting and access arrangements
           supported by the Le@rning Federation’s Basic e-learning Tool Set (BELTS) software.
           In addition, many pilot and development projects under way and planned at a jurisdictional level
           complement the work of The Le@rning Federation. They serve a range of jurisdiction objectives,
           including the need for specialised content such as, for example, for the teaching of particular
           languages in some areas, to undertake research, to raise levels of skill amongst specialist teachers
           and support staff, and to explore technical implications of online learning.

6.3.3      Costs
           The costs of content-related initiatives were reported by jurisdictions and included in the totals
           presented here, subject to the limitations mentioned above concerning the challenges in reporting
           separately on Content, Connectivity and Professional Development components of jurisdiction e-
           learning projects.
           The national total and per-student average expenditure reported by jurisdictions on content
           development for 2001-2003 are as shown below, reflecting the following:
                • Consistent with the methodology described above, calendar year totals were derived from
                     the Le@rning Federation agreed funding financial year totals, and therefore display a
                     different growth profile;
                • Jurisdictions' reported contributions to The Le@rning Federation are shown;
                • The Commonwealth Government contribution, which matches jurisdiction contributions, is
                     not included in Figure 6.12 but is shown separately in Table 6.3. For 2002/3 this was
                     $7.2M, and amounted to $3.22 per student per annum in calendar year 2003; and
                • The New Zealand Government also contributed, commencing with $1.18M in 2002/3,
                     equivalent to $0.53 per student per annum in calendar year 2003.

           Figure 6.12: Content Development - National average cost per student ($)


                      15
                                                            12.3

                                                            3.2
                      10
                                                                         Le@rning Federation
                                             6.7
                                                                         Jurisdiction Projects
                                             26
                        5                                   9.1
                                 3.2
                                1.0
                                             4.1
                                 2.2
                        0
                                2001        2002          2003




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05, Page 107
Resourcing The National Goals                                                   Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


               Table 6.3: Average national cost of Content
                                                                         2001            2002                2003
                                             Jurisdiction Projects        2.2             4.1                 9.1
                                             Le@rning Federation          1.0             2.6                 3.2
                                             Total before
                                                                         3.2              6.7                12.3
              Average Cost per Student ($) Commonwealth Contribution
                                             Commonwealth Contribution   1.0              2.6                 3.2
                                             Total with
                                                                         4.2              9.2                15.6
                                             Commonwealth Contribution
                                             Jurisdiction Projects       5.0              9.2                20.6
                                             Le@rning Federation         2.3              5.9                7.3
                                             Total before
                                                                         7.2             15.1                27.9
             Total National Expenditure ($M) Commonwealth Contribution
                                             Commonwealth Contribution   2.3              5.9                 7.3
                                             Total with
                                                                         9.5             20.9                35.2
                                             Commonwealth Contribution


             Overall annual growth in the per-student national average for 2001-2003 was 96%.
             Significant differences between jurisdictions are seen in the per-student averages by jurisdiction for
             2003. These averages span a range from $4 to $22 per student per annum, and average expenditure
             generally decreases with increasing jurisdiction enrolments.
             Jurisdiction project averages increased by 103%, and contributions to the Le@rning Federation by
             80%.
             It was reported by some jurisdictions that their own content development initiatives, while benefiting
             in the near term from the contribution of the Le@rning Federation, would in time become the primary
             source of new specialised content for their own online learning purposes. Other jurisdictions
             identified the important ability of the Le@rning Federation to act as a vehicle for collaboration, with
             benefits in synergy, standardisation and cost-effectiveness, and were scaling down their own content
             development projects in 2004.
             It should be noted that just prior to the finalisation of this report, AESOC agreed to forward to
             MCEETYA for consideration a proposed Content Strategy81 and a range of funding models taking into
             account a recent commissioned study82 on the cost-effectiveness of shared development of content. If
             approved by MCEETYA, this may lead to further funding for The Le@rning Federation.
             The current funding commitments for The Le@rning Federation plateau at approximately $16M for
             financial years 2003/04 to 2005/06.




81
     AESOC (2004, unpublished), op.cit
82
     Murray, C., (2004), op.cit.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05, Page 108
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                         Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




6.4          Priority Area - Professional Development



                                        Key Findings for Professional Development

                     •     It was not possible to identify a large proportion of the national expenditure on Professional
                           Development for ICT because it is spent through school budgets and was not able to be reported by
                           most jurisdictions.
                     •     The total national reported expenditure on Professional Development for 2003 excluding the Australian
                           Capital Territory was $16.8m.
                     •     Reported expenditure is comprised mainly of readily-identifiable central programs ($13.9m), with a
                           smaller amount ($2.9m) of reported schools expenditure.
                     •     Actual school expenditure was, however, estimated at $37m, including the $2.9m reported amount.
                     •     Consideration of all reported and estimated unreported costs implies an indicative estimate for total
                           national expenditure of $51.1m.
                     •     This implies a per-student average of $23 and a per-teacher average of $336.




6.4.1        Professional Development
             This report is concerned with professional development of principals and teachers in connection with
             the use of ICT in teaching and learning in schools. Professional development needs of staff engaged
             in the planning, implementation and management of ICT infrastructure and services within
             jurisdictions were not studied.

6.4.2        Current Skill Levels
             The ability of teachers to use ICT effectively to support learning outcomes was generally reported to
             be developing from a low base and was a specific priority for most jurisdictions. It was also clear
             that the current capabilities of teachers to use ICT varied widely in the sector.
             Making Better Connections83, a major study recently commissioned by the Department of Education,
             Science and Training, suggests a framework for ICT presented in terms of four types of educational
             outcomes currently being sought both in Australia and overseas through the use of ICT in
             classrooms:
                  • Type A: encouraging the acquisition of ICT skills as an end themselves;
                  • Type B: using ICT to enhance students’ abilities within the existing curriculum;
                  • Type C: introducing ICT as an integral component of broader curricular reforms that are
                      changing not only how learning occurs but what is learned; and
                  • Type D: introducing ICT as an integral component of the reforms that alter the organisation
                      and structure of schooling itself.
             Although that report did not focus on costings, it presented an example of estimated training
             requirements, in terms of hours needed for outcomes of Type A, developed as part of a national
             program for Hong Kong 84.

83
  Department of Education, Science and Training (2001) Making Better Connections. A report to DEST by Downes, T., Fluck, A.,
Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., Vickers, M., and Williams, M
http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/publications/2002/professional.htm
84
   A well-defined national CPD program was developed for training 80,000 teachers in technical and pedagogical skills at an estimated cost of
HK$514M in DEST (2001) op.cit.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05, Page 109
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                        Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


             Further issues for future professional development of teachers are raised in a recent major
             Commonwealth Government report Australia’s Teachers: Australia’s Future85 which
             comprehensively addresses innovation and the teaching of science, technology and mathematics.

6.4.3        Leadership
             The role of school principals and executive management teams in achieving the necessary levels of
             skill is of critical importance. School Principals and Executive Management Teams can foster the
             development of online learning by providing intellectual and managerial leadership in continuing
             professional development for their teachers and specialist staff.
             Appropriate executive action by principals in connection with resources in schools, including
             budgets, equipment and staff is of fundamental importance. The professional development programs
             of all jurisdictions have centralised elements which in some cases include tied funding.
             Nevertheless, discretionary expenditure through school budgets to meet school needs for teacher
             training and to permit the release of teachers to participate in training and other development
             activities is a basic requirement for improved teacher skill outcomes.

6.4.4        Resourcing Mechanisms
             While overall expenditure on professional development was not studied, jurisdictions estimated that
             the ICT component ranged between about ten percent and fifty percent of the total.
             There are two main mechanisms for the resourcing of professional development in ICT.
             The first mechanism is through school budgets, with the largest item being leave relief to allow
             teachers to attend training courses. Schools in some cases also fund a range of related expenses,
             such as specialist ICT support staff or nominated specialist teachers who act as champions or
             mentors, externally-provided training, and travel for teachers to attend conferences, workshops and
             courses. In some cases the budget provision for professional development is “tied” and payable only
             for the budgeted purpose, but in general expenditure is made from school budgets at the Principal’s
             discretion according to the needs of the particular school.
             The second mechanism is a range of centrally-funded targeted initiatives such as workshops, internal
             and external training sessions, the teacher learning components of content development and e-
             learning projects, and the development of after-hours learning packages which may be supported by
             online discussion groups and trained facilitators. The costs of these initiatives are readily
             identifiable, although the relevant component of projects and trials is often difficult to quantify.

6.4.5        Reported Expenditure
             Expenditure on professional development for ICT was clearly under-reported.
             The total national expenditure on Professional Development reported by jurisdictions for 2003 was
             $16.8m, excluding the Australian Capital Territory86. A large proportion of professional development
             costs is funded by untied grants spent through school budgets according to needs, and were not
             reported by most jurisdictions. Therefore most of this unreported component of the cost, which is
             believed to be the majority, was not included in the national total of $16.8m reported by jurisdictions
             (refer following section).
             For the costs as reported:
                   •      The per-student averages were $3.80 in 2001, $4.50 in 2002 and $7.52 in 2003;
                   •      The reported per-student expenditure for 2001-2003 grew at an average rate of 40%;
                   •      The reported per-teacher average annual expenditure for 200387 was $110.



85
   Department of Education, Science and Training (2003) Australia’s Teachers: Australia’s Future, produced under the Backing Australia's Ability
Program.
86
   In the ACT, Professional Development is funded through school budgets and costs could not be reported separately.
87
   MCEETYA (2001/02) National Schools Statistics Collection, Provisional (unpublished) report. Summary Tables 3.1 - Full Time Equivalent
Teachers. Teacher numbers for 2001 were the latest quoted.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                   Final May 05, Page 110
Resourcing The National Goals                                                   Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


                •     The per-student averages for 2003 show wide variation between jurisdictions, spanning a
                      range from $1 to $62 per student per annum, but only one jurisdiction spent more than $17.
                •     The average expenditure per FTE teacher ranged from $14 to $811, but only one
                      jurisdiction spent more than $240. In general, the largest jurisdictions reported spending
                      least on professional development on a per-teacher basis.

6.4.6      Independently Estimated Expenditure
           Four jurisdictions, which together accounted for 37% of the reported expenditure of $16.8M, were
           able to provide estimates of the amounts spent on ICT professional development in schools in 2003,
           relying on the assumption that budgets were being spent for the intended purpose. These
           jurisdictions spent on average 27% of their ICT professional development resources centrally, and
           73% at the school level. If this is assumed to be typical of all jurisdictions, and based on the $13.9M
           of reported national expenditure which was spent centrally, it is possible to infer a broad indicative
           estimate of $37M for the actual school expenditure, and $51M for total expenditure.
           Thus it is estimated that national expenditure on Professional Development in 2003 was
           approximately $34.3M higher than reported.

           Table 6.4: Expenditure for Professional Development for 2003 ($m)

                                           Reported ($m)            Estimated ($m)                 Difference ($m)
            Central Expenditure                 13.9                     13.9                             -
            School Expenditure                  2.9                      37.2                           34.3
            TOTAL                               16.8                     51.1                           34.3


           The indicative estimate of $51M for total national expenditure for 2003 equates to a per student
           average of $23 and a per teacher average of $336.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05, Page 111
Resourcing The National Goals                                                              Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




6.5        School Related Factors



                                     Key findings for School Related Factors

                  •   Results need to be viewed with caution because they represent a snapshot in a particular area based
                      on data which had not been audited.
                  •   For primary schools, the expected apparent diseconomy of scale affecting smaller schools (which in
                      many cases are the more remote schools) can be clearly seen.
                  •   In the case of secondary schools, the same apparent diseconomy of scale is also implied.
                  •   Analysis of unaudited data suggests that the level of private resources can be substantial but is likely to
                      vary widely across the sector.




6.5.1      School Size as Additional Cost Factor
           To investigate the relationship between ICT costs and school size, expenditure was considered in one
           jurisdiction in 2003 for 971 primary schools and 182 secondary schools. Combined and special
           schools were excluded.
           ICT costs per school were estimated from per-school data on School ICT Grants for February 2003
           and Oct 2003 amounting to $25.2m (primary), and $ 10.7m (secondary).
           In this analysis, approximately $5m in centrally-funded initiatives relating to infrastructure and e-
           learning were ignored.
           The results of this analysis need to be viewed with caution because it represents a snapshot in a
           particular area based on data which had not been audited. However, for primary schools, the
           expected apparent diseconomy of scale affecting smaller schools (which in many cases are the more
           remote schools) can be clearly seen.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                        Final May 05, Page 112
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


           Figure 6.13: ICT cost per student vs school size - Primary




                                 $30,000


                                 $25,000


                                 $20,000


                                 $15,000


                                 $10,000


                                  $5,000


                                       $0
                                             0       200        400         600         800          1000         1200     1400

                                                                        School Enrolment


           The same data presented in terms of the bands used in the context of national grant funding are
           shown inFigure 6.14.

           Figure 6.14: ICT cost per student vs school size - Primary school bands



                           $1,000           825


                                $500                  357
                                                                      222
                                                                                  135           95           69
                                 $0
                                            0 - 29   30 - 59     60 - 99     100 - 199 200 - 349            > 350
                                                               School Enrolment


           In the case of secondary schools, the same apparent diseconomy of scale is also implied, despite a
           lack of data points at the low end because of the small number of high schools with enrolments of
           fewer than about 100.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                         Final May 05, Page 113
Resourcing The National Goals                                                            Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


           Figure 6.15: ICT cost per student vs school size - Secondary




                          $3,000


                          $2,500


                          $2,000


                          $1,500


                          $1,000


                             $500


                                $0
                                      0            500            1000            1500               2000             2500

                                                                  School Enrolment



           The same data presented in terms of the bands used in the context of national grant funding are
           shown in Figure 6.16. The 0-99 and 100-149 bands conform to the trend, but are based on a sample
           of only five schools and are therefore not shown.

           Figure 6.16: ICT cost per student - Secondary school bands


                     $300
                                                            180
                     $200
                                                                         105         88
                     $100                                                                          62

                        $0
                                     0 - 99   100 - 149   150 - 199   200 - 499   500 - 799       > 800
                                                              School Size



6.5.2      ICT Resources
           It was reported that in some areas, the contribution of community and parent groups to ICT
           resourcing in schools was a substantial proportion of the total. However, jurisdictions were
           generally unable to specify the sources of funds.
           As an indicative example, expenditure was considered in two districts in one jurisdiction in 2003,
           each containing approximately 40 primary and secondary schools for which detailed information was
           available. Combined and special schools were excluded.
           Spending in terms of core grants, special grants and private funding was calculated on a per-student
           basis. Although these data had not been audited and reflect the situation only at two specific
           locations which may not be typical, the analysis suggests that the level of private resources can be
           substantial but is likely to vary widely across the sector.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                      Final May 05, Page 114
Resourcing The National Goals                                               Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


           Figure 6.17: Total resources for ICT per school ($)




             $60,000

                                $2,000

                                $6,907
             $50,000




             $40,000            $17,791                                  Partnerships/
                                                   $189                  Other
                                                                 $999
                                                                         P & C Funding
             $30,000

                                                       $11,693           Additional
                                $19,349
                                                                         School Grant
             $20,000
                                                                         Oct 2002 Grant
                                                       $11,728
             $10,000                                                     Feb 2003 Grant
                                $10,849
                                                       $7,293
                   $0
                                Area 1                 Area 2
                                      Selected Districts



           Figure 6.18: Total resources for ICT per school (%)


                        100%               4%         1%
                                                      3%
                        90%               12%

                        80%                                      37%
                                                                               Partnerships/
                        70%               31%                                  Other
                                                                               P & C Funding
                        60%

                        50%                                                    Additional School
                                                                               Grant
                        40%                                      37%           Oct 2002 Grant
                                          34%
                        30%                                                    Feb 2003 Grant

                        20%

                        10%               19%                    23%

                          0%
                                          Area 1                Area 2
                                             Selected Districts




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                       Final May 05, Page 115
Resourcing The National Goals                                                    Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools



6.6            Overview of Future ICT Requirements

               Ongoing jurisdiction programs in connectivity, content and professional development were in
               varying stages of development in terms of their ability to meet the agreed national ICT goals. future
               ICT provisioning was reviewed with reference to the current situation in terms of Priority Areas to
               assess what the investment requirements should be over the next three years in order to meet these
               goals.
               It is acknowledged that the planning, design, procurement, implementation and operation of the
               systems and facilities requirements described below would involve significant commitment by
               jurisdictions of managerial and specialist staff resources. However, as already stated, these costs are
               not reflected in this report.

6.6.1          Connectivity

               ICT Infrastructure in Schools

               Computers
               In general the rate of acquisition of additional school computers is now falling, but expenditure
               continues on laptops for teachers and the ongoing replacement of school computers. While computer
               unit pricing is on a slight downward trend, ongoing expenditure on replacement will be required but
               at a level which is relatively stable in real terms for the foreseeable future.

               Local Networks 88
               Although most school computers are now network-connected, some capital investment in cabling
               will be required in many areas to improve coverage and ensure that all computers can be networked.
               Wireless networks will increasingly be adopted to allow more flexible use of learning spaces but are
               growing from a low base and will be a small proportion of connectivity costs.
               Worthwhile amounts of online content require both increased bandwidth and the implementation of
               relatively large integrated software systems. The requirement for student-related information and
               increased Internet use also makes demands on school network infrastructure.
               Just as for computer workstations, school servers and proxy servers will require continuous
               upgrading or replacement at approximately three to five years.

               Wide Area Networks
               Although access bandwidth enhancement programs were in place in all jurisdictions, the degree of
               completeness varied amongst jurisdictions.
               In some jurisdictions, investment in currently-planned access bandwidth for some schools of less
               than 1 Mbit/s appear insufficient for the requirements of expected Internet demand and online
               learning, and expenditure on true broadband or xDSL services need to be brought forward.
               Recurrent costs for access will continue to rise substantially for at least the next two years and
               probably through to 2006 as broadband or near-broadband access is extended to all urban and most
               regional schools.

               ICT Support in Schools
               Negligible growth was reported in support costs for 2001-2003, but jurisdictions generally reported
               difficulties in providing adequate ICT support for systems and for teachers. Costs increases for
               systems support will be moderated by centralised remote management techniques in some larger
               jurisdictions, but some on-site support will continue to be required. The predicted increases in ICT
               professional development, teacher participation in online learning, and the associated introduction of
               a range of additional software applications will increase the requirements for teacher support
               mechanisms. Overall, costs are expected to increase at a moderate rate from 2005.
88
     Additional details appear in Appendix 6



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                            Final May 05, Page 116
Resourcing The National Goals                                                    Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


             Centralised ICT Infrastructure and Services 89
             Centralised shared ICT infrastructure and online services delivered to schools via WANs and VPNs
             include the centralised systems for the delivery and management of online learning.

             Significant expenditure increases took place to 2003, and the required further development of
             facilities to streamline networks and to support online learning will result in substantial growth over
             the period of interest.

             Software90
             The whole-of-jurisdiction annual licensing arrangements for Windows and basic applications
             described above allow school computers to be upgraded or replaced without substantial additional
             software cost. Therefore these costs will remain relatively steady in real terms, however substantial
             effort and expenditure is required from 2004 to 2006 to implement software systems with the
             functionality and performance required to meet goals for online learning.

             Internet Services 91
             Use of Internet services including email, web and collaborative modes is increasing on a per-user
             basis, the increasing size of file attachments and downloaded files has been widely reported, and
             school bandwidth restrictions are being rapidly eased. Very large growth in Internet download
             volumes was reported wherever increased bandwidth has been provided, and significant cost
             increases were reported to 2003.

             Volume management arrangements will soon have been implemented in some form in all
             jurisdictions, which will tend to moderate inappropriate or excessive use, but should not limit the
             main stream of teaching and learning use, for which the underlying demand continues to increase.

             The recurrent costs for Internet use are expected to rise significantly over the period to 2006.

6.6.2        Content
             Annual expenditure to 2003 reported by jurisdictions on further content development to meet their
             particular needs is greater than the current funding commitments for the Le@rning Federation, and is
             expected to grow considerably to at least 2006. This is consistent with the intention of most
             jurisdictions to build on the work of the Le@rning Federation and continue to develop new content
             meeting a large proportion of their needs.

6.6.3        Professional Development
             Almost all jurisdictions stated an intention to focus their professional development programs on
             developing teachers’ abilities to use online learning techniques and resources effectively in the
             classroom. However, there are many teachers who will need to acquire a basis of knowledge and
             confidence with ICT and then with a suite of online learning tools before addressing pedagogical
             aspects of online learning in the classroom. It appears that a substantially increased management
             focus and expenditure on professional development is required if teachers as a group are to be in a
             position to utilise the networks, content and first-generation tools which are likely to be substantially
             in place in most jurisdictions by the end of 2006.

             The recent Commonwealth review92 of teaching and teacher education considered the needs of the
             teacher workforce in science, technology and mathematics, and recommends 54 actions, of which a
             number address needs for teacher learning in ICT, although no assessment is provided of costs.

             Although reported historical expenditure levels varied widely amongst jurisdictions, increased
             priority and increased future investment for professional development were consistently reported,
             and national expenditure will increase substantially to 2006. A substantial proportion of the cost will

89
   Additional details appear in Appendix 6
90
   Additional details appear in Appendix 6
91
   Additional details appear in Appendix 6
92
   Department of Education, Science and Training (2003) op.cit.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                            Final May 05, Page 117
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                              Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


           continue to be the release of teachers from classrooms to participate in training, and courses and
           digital content are already available for the earlier stages of ICT training, so that immediate and
           effective use can be made of additional resources without waiting for new courses to be developed.

6.7        Future Cost Estimates



                            Summary of Future Cost Estimates - (i) Total Costs
               • Future costs were estimated by the following three complementary methods:
                   o For reference, future ICT costs were first estimated on the basis of projections from historical costs
                   o Jurisdiction predictions based on known costs and needs were then compiled
                   o ICT requirements to enable the achievement of the National Goals were broadly identified, and an
                        independent estimate of the cost was developed.



                       Figure 6.19: Estimated national ICT expenditure ($m)




                         1,200
                                                                                       1,030
                         1,000
                                                                                                     871
                                                                     802
                                                                                 772
                          800                      650         650                             693
                                                         638
                                                                           670                                Historical Projection
                                 545         545
                          600          545                                                                    Jurisdiction Estimate
                                                                                                              Independent Estimate
                          400

                          200

                             0
                                   2003              2004              2005               2006




                       Table 6.5: Independent estimate of future costs ($m), by Priority Area


                                                           2003              2004                    2005            2006             Growth1
                   Connectivity                            466.1             557.7                   660.8           740.8             16.7%
                   Content                                 27.9              28.6                    32.6            34.1              6.9%2
                   Professional Development                51.1              63.3                    79.0            96.4             23.6%3
                   Total                                    545               650                     772             871              16.9%

                     Note 1: Growth is average annual growth from 2003
                     Note 2: Note also the Commonwealth contribution matching jurisdiction contributions to The Le@rning
                     Federation
                     Note 3: Includes the estimated $34.3M unreported component of profession development




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                         Final May 05, Page 118
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                            Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools



                             Summary of Future Cost Estimates - (ii) Additional Costs

                             Table 6.6: Additional resources for achievement of the National Goals (no adjustment for
                                        inflation


                                                                                   2003           2004            2005            2006
                            Expenditure to meet National Goals                      545           650             772             871
                            Additional Resources Required (over 2003)
                                                                                                  105             227             326
                            ($m p.a.)
                            Per Student Average Resourcing ($p.a.)                  241           287             341             385
                            Additional Per Student Resourcing ($ p.a.)                             46             100             144
                            Increase on 2003 Expenditure                                          19%             42%             60%




               While costs and average annual growth rates are presented in this section to three significant figures,
               they are based on estimates of future costs and therefore, even where they are accurate summaries of
               data provided by jurisdictions, they must be regarded as indicative.

6.7.1          Future Cost Estimates Based on Historical Trends
               A view of future costs was first developed by projecting the historical costs reported by jurisdictions
               for the period 2001-2003 on the basis of cost trends for 2001-2003. Each cost element of the Priority
               Areas was projected at its average growth rate93, and the elements were added to give an annual total.

               Figure 6.20: Future ICT costs projected from historical data ($m)




               1,500
                                                                       1,030
               1,000                                     802
                                           650
                            545
                 500

                    0
                            2003          2004           2005           2006



             Note 1:    The Le@rning Federation component of content was determined by reference to the agreed funding program.
             Note 2:    The estimated $34.3 in unreported professional development costs was included but not subject to growth since no historical data
             were available for this component.




93
     Excluding the Le@rning Federation component of Content, which is determined by an agreed funding program.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                      Final May 05, Page 119
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                     Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools



           Table 6.7 Future costs - projected from 2003, by Priority Area ($m)
                                                                   Growth p.a.           2003        2004             2005             2006
           Connectivity                        School                 9.0%               195.8       213.3            232.5            253.3
                                               Infrastructure
                                               WAN/VPN                 44.4%              89.4       129.0            186.3            268.9
                                               ICT Support              1.1%              74.0       74.8             75.7             76.5
                                               Centralised             20.9%              52.5       63.5             76.8             92.8
                                               ICT
                                               Software                 6.1%             34.1        36.2             38.4             40.7
                                               Internet                26.2%             16.2        20.4             25.7             32.5
                                               Other                   18.4%              4.2         5.0              5.9              7.0
                                               Sub-total               13.9%             466.1       542.2            641.2            771.7

           Content                             Jurisdiction           103.3%              20.6        42.0             85.3            173.5
                                               Projects
                                               Le@rning                  (1)              7.3          7.5              7.6            3.9(2)
                                               Federation
                                               Sub-total               96.4%              27.9        49.4             92.9            177.4

           Professional Development            Sub-total(3)            40.5%              51.1        57.9             67.4             80.8

           TOTAL                               ( 4)                    16.7%              545         650              802             1030
         Note 1:   These calendar year totals are derived from agreed financial year funding totals. Note also the Commonwealth contribution
         matching jurisdiction contributions.
         Note 2:   Current Le@rning Federation funding commitments end in 2005/2006. At the time of this report, AESOC was considering future
         funding options.
         Note 3: Totals include the estimated $34.3M unreported component of Professional Development. Growth rate is shown for reported costs
         only.
         Note 4: Total growth rate is for reference. Totals are the sums of the projections.


           While a number of the elements of cost shown above will continue to grow strongly, several large
           elements will not continue to grow at historical rates. For example, as the current bandwidth
           improvement programs and school network upgrades reach completion, the corresponding costs will
           tend to plateau at a new high level determined by the recurrent costs of broadband
           telecommunications network contracts and technology refreshment cycles for infrastructure.
           Therefore the projected costs can be seen as representing an upper bound to likely cost outcomes.
           However, there is the possibility that the levelling of costs will be only tempoarary, appearing as a
           step before a further round of increases driven by another quantum increase for bandwidth through
           changes in internet use.

6.7.2      Future Costs Based on Jurisdiction Estimates
           Total estimated national ICT expenditure for 2004-2006 based on known costs for current plans and
           predicted expenditure based on needs is shown below. Reported historical costs are shown to 2003
           for comparison.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                 Final May 05, Page 120
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                     Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


           Figure 6.21: Predicted national expenditure based on jurisdiction estimates ($m)




                                  1000

                                                                                          670                  693
                                                                     638
                                                  545
                                   500




                                      0
                                                  2003               2004                 2005                 2006



           The breakdown in terms of Priority Areas is as follows:

           Table 6.8: Details of predicted national expenditure based on jurisdiction estimates ($m)
                                          2003               2004                 2005                 2006              Growth ( 1)
           Connectivity                   466.1              557.1                570.2                576.8                7.4%
           Content ( 2)                    27.9              25.2                 28.1                 23.2               -6.1% ( 3)
           Professional
           Development                    51.1                55.3                 71.2                 93.0              22.1% ( 4)
           Total                          545                 638                  670                  693                 8.3%
         Note 1:   Growth is annual average growth from 2003
         Note 2:   Note also the Commonwealth contribution matching jurisdiction contributions to The Le@rning Federation
         Note 2:   Decrease in 2004 relates to one large jurisdiction and in 2006 to assumption about funding for the Le@rning Federation. See
         below
         Note 3:   Includes the estimated $34.4m unreported component of Professional Development


           The following observations are made on the above costs:
               • Connectivity costs are consistent with the combination of major cost elements (bandwidth
                    and school infrastructure) reaching a plateau and smaller cost elements continuing to grow
                    over the period;
               • The decrease in Content in 2004 is associated with the planned transfer of substantial
                    resources from content development budgets to professional development in the case of
                    one large jurisdiction.
               • The decrease in Content in 2006 results from the fact that the current funding agreements
                    for the Le@rning Federation end in financial year 2005-2006 and no assumption has been
                    made concerning continuity.
               • In other respects the costs indicate that most jurisdictions will invest in content
                    development at a steady or slightly increasing level.

6.7.3      Independent Estimate of Future Costs
           Information provided by jurisdictions on current and future plans and costs was reviewed with
           reference to agreed national goals and strategies, to independently develop indicative future cost
           estimates.
           In particular, jurisdictions’ future cost estimates were reviewed to determine where additional
           expenditure was required to fund programs and projects and to bring forward the completion of




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                 Final May 05, Page 121
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                  Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


           existing and planned programs and projects in order to enable the achievement of the National Goals
           for Schooling within the 2004-2006 period as far as reasonably practicable.
           The areas where significant additional resourcing was considered necessary are those which support
           the following purposes:

           Table 6.9: Areas requiring additional resources, by Priority Area
                   Area                                                         Purpose
                                     • Upgrading of narrowband access to true broadband rates (at least 1 Mbit/s) in all jurisdictions
                                       for all but the smallest metropolitan and regional schools
                                     • Acceleration of bandwidth improvements for distance education
            Connectivity             • Completion of bandwidth improvement to broadband rates by the end of 2006
                                     • Completion of school network upgrading for online learning by mid-2006
                                     • Integrated systems for managed online learning in most jurisdictions by end 2006

                                     • A meaningful level of content development maintained in all jurisdictions with emphasis on
            Content                    local requirements

                                     •    Updating where required for principals and ICT specialists/champions by mid-2005
            Professional             •    Programs where required for all teachers in basic ICT by mid-2005
            Development              •    Most teachers to be confident users of their jurisdiction’s online learning suite by 2006
                                     •    Broadly-based and significant integration of online learning in classroom processes

           The following assumptions were made in determining the timing of additional expenditure:
               • Effective use can be made of additional resources for professional development from 2004
                    without inefficiencies arising;
               • Digital content available over the period will be regarded by most jurisdictions as sufficient
                    to justify proceeding to implement online learning;
               • Integrated systems adequate for the integration of online learning into schools can be
                    implemented by 2006 in most jurisdictions.

           The independent estimates of total cost are as follows:

           Table 6.10: Independent estimate of future ICT costs ($m)
                                     2003                  2004                2005                 2006              Growth 1
          Connectivity               466.1                 557.7               660.8                740.8              16.7%
          Content2                   27.9                  28.6                32.6                 34.1                6.9%
          Professional
                                         51.1               63.3                79.0                96.4               23.6%3
          Development
          TOTAL                          545                650                 772                 871                 16.9%
         Note 1:   Growth is annual average growth from 2003
         Note 2:   Note also the Commonwealth contribution matching jurisdiction contributions to The Le@rning Federation
         Note 3:   Includes the estimated $34.4m unreported component of Professional Development




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                             Final May 05, Page 122
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                              Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools


           A comparison of independent, jurisdiction and projected costs, is shown in Figure 6.22:

           Figure 6.22: Comparison of estimates of national ICT expenditure ($m)


                      1,200
                                                                                       1,030
                      1,000
                                                                                                     871
                                                                    802         772
                       800                        650         650                              693
                                                        638
                                                                          670                                      Historical Projection
                                545         545
                       600            545                                                                          Jurisdiction Estimate
                                                                                                                   Independent Estimate
                       400

                       200

                          0
                                  2003              2004              2005                   2006



6.7.4      Future Additional Resourcing Needs

           Overall Additional Resourcing Needs
           Compared to 2003 levels of expenditure, the additional resources required to enable the achievement
           of the National Goals for Schooling were independently estimated as follows in Table 6.11:

           Table 6.11: Additional resources (over 2003 levels) required for achievement of the National Goals
                                                                                      2003                  2004              2005          2006
            Expenditure To Meet National Goals ($m p.a.)                              545                   650               772           871
            Additional National Resourcing ($m p.a.)                                                        105               227           326
            Per-Student Average Resourcing ($ p.a.)                                   241                   287               341           385
            Additional Per-Student Resourcing ($ p.a.)                                                       46               100           144
            Increase on 2003 expenditure                                                                    19%               42%           60%

           Additional Resourcing Requirements in Priority Areas
           The independent estimate of additional expenditure over 2003 levels was analysed by Priority Area
           as follows in Table 6.12:

           Table 6.12: Additional resources required for Priority Areas
                                                                      2003                       2004                     2005              2006
           Connectivity                                               466.1                     557.7                    660.8             740.8
           Additional National Resourcing ($m p.a.)                                              91.6                    194.7             274.7
           Per-Student National Expenditure ($ p.a.)                  205.8                     246.3                    291.8             327.2
           Additional Per-Student Expenditure ($ p.a.)                                           40.5                     86.0             121.3
           Increase on 2003 expenditure                                                         19.7%                    41.8%             58.9%
           Content                                                        27.9                   28.6                     32.6              34.1
           Additional National Resourcing ($m p.a.)                                               0.7                      4.7               6.2
           Per-Student National Expenditure ($ p.a.)                      12.3                   12.6                     14.4              15.1
           Additional Per-Student Expenditure ($ p.a.)                                            0.3                      2.1               2.7
           Increase on 2003 expenditure                                                          2.5%                    16.8%             22.2%
           Professional Development                                       51.1                   63.3                     79.0              96.4
           Additional National Resourcing ($m p.a.)                                              12.1                     27.9              45.3
           Per-Student National Expenditure ($ p.a.)                      22.6                   27.9                     34.9              42.6
           Additional Per-Student Expenditure ($ p.a.)                                            5.4                     12.3              20.0
           Increase on 2003 expenditure                                                         23.8%                    54.6%             88.7%
           Total National ICT Costs                                       545                     650                      772               871




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                         Final May 05, Page 123
Resourcing The National Goals                                                       National School Resourcing Standard




Chapter 7                   The National School Resourcing Standard (NSRS) – a
                            national integrated approach to school resourcing

7.1        Rationale

           The present national system of school resourcing is the subject of controversy. It is considered by
           advocates of many schools and systems to be inadequate for a variety of different reasons. A key
           factor behind the controversy is the shared responsibility for the public funding of schools by
           national, state and territory governments. Policy difference on school funding between levels of
           government has greatly contributed to incoherence in the final settlement of the total amount and
           distribution of funds across schools. As a consequence, it is not possible to properly measure the
           quantum of all public funds for schooling (or resource distribution) against student need and the
           attainment of expected learning objectives for children.
           The National School Resourcing Standard (NSRS) has been designed as a cost framework to enable
           governments, education systems and schools to focus more effectively on the following objectives:
           Improved student learning outcomes - the NSRS is based directly on a calculation of the costs of
           achieving student learning outcomes. It is a reference point for understanding the relationship
           between outcomes and resource allocations. Other needs frameworks rely on de-facto measures of
           student learning needs without due consideration to targeted learning outcomes.
           Funding for equitable outcomes - the NSRS specifies the total amount of resources required so that
           important (and measurable) learning and participation objectives can be realistically attained by all
           students.
           Improving the efficiency of school operations - the NSRS identifies the required minimum
           expenditures to enable all students to attain specified learning and participation objectives. The cost
           projections are therefore on the basis of the most efficient use of resources.
           The NSRS can be used to serve a number of purposes, including;
               • A national resourcing benchmark against which the total public funding of schools can be
                  measured.
               • A national framework for the development of macro-level funding policies for schools
                  irrespective of sector.
               • An analytical framework and information base for school systems to assist in their internal
                  allocation of funds across schools, levels of schooling and across sectors.
               • A rational basis for funding negotiations between the Commonwealth, the States and the
                  non-government sector.

7.2        The NSRS Cost Framework

           The NSRS is a cost framework for determining the actual recurrent costs of schooling in order to
           meet specified learning objectives derived from the National Goals for Schooling adopted by
           Ministers (MCEETYA, 1999).
           The NSRS is a ‘next generation’ funding approach to schooling. It defines actual required
           expenditure for schooling according to the level of school resourcing that will enable the attainment
           and distribution of specified learning outcomes.
           Previous funding formulae and programme funding approaches in Australia (and most other
           countries) have been based on a combination of the following:
           (i)      historical funding patterns linked to annual cost indexation and available funds,
           (ii)     costing total funding on the basis of a basket of deemed essential inputs (such as the
                    Community Standard adopted by the Commonwealth Schools Commission, 1984),




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                        Final May 05, Page   124
Resourcing The National Goals                                                      National School Resourcing Standard


           (iii)    apportioning a politically determined amount of funds designated for schooling based on the
                    weighted learning needs of individual students and cost profiles of schools (as applied in
                    different ways by most states in Australia).
           The NSRS framework makes an essential link between efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of
           schooling. The NSRS aggregates at the national level detailed cost information about effective
           schooling practices. This enables the construction of funding formulas for the allocation of resources
           to different schools.
           The cost framework integrates the results of two cost analyses – (i) Base costs, and (ii) future
           Additional Resourcing Needs.

7.2.1      Base cost of schooling
           The Base cost (recurrent) of schools is an empirically based estimate of existing least cost for
           primary and secondary schools where (i) they are operating in middle-range SES communities, (ii)
           have a school and student profile that attracts very limited (if any) additional targeted resourcing
           from government, and (iii) have students meeting a set of specified participation and learning
           benchmarks. The Base cost estimate, termed the Existing Least Cost (ELC), was calculated as part of
           the Resourcing the National Goals project during 2002-2003. Data was collected from all states and
           territories except for the Northern Territory. This data was subjected to statistical and cost analyses
           and the results and conclusions are presented in Part 1 of this report.

7.2.2      Additional Resourcing Needs
           Future Additional Resourcing Needs are composed of (i) currently funded provisions, and (ii)
           estimates of currently unfunded future additional resourcing needs.
           Based on the findings of this study, it is broadly estimated that 15% of actual recurrent funding is for
           additional resourcing needs covering student, school and other factors. This funded additional
           expenditure meets the specific needs of schools that do not fit least cost operating conditions
           required by the base cost scenario.
           Current funding levels for additional needs are the difference between the Base cost estimate of
           schooling and the aggregate recurrent expenditure for schooling across the nation. The actual
           national aggregate recurrent expenditure is measured on a consistent basis by government systems
           across states and reported annually in the Annual National Report of Schooling (ANR).
           The operational reality of the overwhelming number of Australian schools is not reflected and cannot
           be accommodated by the resourcing of a base cost scenario. First, there are non-discretionary factors
           – inherent attributes of the students or the school outside the control of school management, that
           generate additional resourcing requirements above the Base cost provisions. Second, additional
           resource demands are generated by an expanded curriculum. In addition, the usefulness of the NSRS
           rests partly on its reliability in predicting the additional and growing demands on schooling. The
           existing least cost of schools does not capture the ambitions of the education community for student
           learning in the future.
           This study has grouped additional resourcing needs into three categories for analysis:
           i)       Student-related;
           ii)      School-related;
           iii)     Curriculum-related.

7.2.3      Additional and uncosted variables
           There are a number of ways in which the NSRS can not claim to be a final measure of all future
           school resourcing needs. The SRT is aware of a number of cost variables that have not been included
           in the analysis.
           The significant resourcing needs generated by students with disabilities have not been costed as part
           of this phase of research. A separate costing exercise that comprehensively examines the resourcing
           needs of these students in relation to the National Goals of schooling will be undertaken during
           2004. The base cost calculations and additional funding required for the effective schooling of



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                       Final May 05, Page   125
Resourcing The National Goals                                                       National School Resourcing Standard


           children with disabilities will be able to be inserted into the analysis of future Additional Resourcing
           Needs to present the complete calculations for the NSRS cost framework.
           The target learning outcomes which form the platform for calculating costs are generally the
           minimum Benchmarks adopted by Ministers against the National Goals. The costings therefore do
           not reflect the higher ambitions held by Ministers and the educational community for all students.
           They do not reflect the cost of improving the whole range of student learning outcomes.
           A number of quality elements are not specifically accounted for. Most notably the cost of ensuring
           an appropriate level and distribution of teacher quality is not directly addressed, except to the extent
           that it is factored into the base cost estimate of schooling. There is a large element of teacher quality
           in base cost estimates as these costs are for schools that are currently effective. There is, however,
           an evolving understanding of what constitutes teacher quality and how it can be guaranteed for all
           students. This is likely to have resource implications that are currently not quantified. The work of
           the Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership Taskforce (TQELT) in establishing a national
           framework for teacher standards is a substantial step toward a national approach to accounting for
           teacher quality. This will allow a future oriented calculation for the reproduction and equitable
           distribution of this critical variable.

7.3        NSRS Headline Costs

           The macro-level cost estimates of the NSRS are expressed through three types of headline cost
           figures – national aggregate costs to attain the NSRS, additional expenditure required to attain the
           NSRS, and per student unit cost estimates of the NSRS. All cost estimates are indicative in nature
           and based on the preliminary costings that are possible from this phase of the Resourcing the
           National Goals project. All costs refer only to government schooling.

7.3.1      Aggregate NSRS Costs
           These represent the total national expenditure required to enable all students in government schools
           to have a realistic chance of attaining the National Goals. The costs are presented for the primary and
           secondary levels separately and as a national total for the two, and are an aggregate of the currently
           funded and unfunded resourcing needs of schools.

7.3.2      Additional Expenditure Required for Schooling
           The additional future expenditure required for schooling is the sum total of currently unfunded
           component of costs calculated in this report that examined the additional resourcing needs of
           schools. Earlier sections of this report showed that government school systems already distribute in
           the order of 15% of their school level funds for student and school related additional resourcing
           needs. This includes additional expenditure for (i) student related factors such as disabilities, low
           SES, ESL, and student of Indigenous background, and (ii) school factors related to size and location.
           Beyond this existing provision for additional resourcing needs, a detailed estimate has been produced
           in this report of the further currently unfunded future resourcing requirements of government
           schools. These are directly related to the outstanding needs associated with student related factors
           (excluding disability needs) and the future resourcing demands of emerging strategic imperatives in
           ICT and VET.

7.3.3      NSRS Unit Costs (government schooling)
           The aggregate NSRS costs can also be expressed as standardised costs per government school
           student at the primary and secondary levels. This standardisation cannot be understood as the
           average unit cost for each government system. Significant unit cost deviations from the national
           average occur where a state system (most notably Northern Territory) has a student and school
           profile imposing future additional resourcing needs that are significantly higher than the national
           average. The NSRS unit cost figure cannot be applied automatically to other school systems or
           individual schools. As a unit cost estimate it would form an upper bound estimate of NSRS unit costs
           for any other system.
           The unit costs of individual schools will deviate significantly around this national unit cost estimate.
           However, any school that (i) is not in a remote location, (ii) is catering for an average SES profile



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                        Final May 05, Page   126
Resourcing The National Goals                                                           National School Resourcing Standard


           community, and (iii) has minimal enrolees with disabilities, will have a NSRS unit cost that will be
           somewhere between the base cost estimate produced as Part 1 of this report and the national NSRS
           unit cost estimate.


                                             NSRS - The Headline Costs

                                   Aggregate NSRS Costs (government schooling)
                                   • National Required Expenditure for Primary Schooling
                                   • National Required Expenditure for Secondary Schooling
                                   • Total National Required Expenditure for Schooling

                                   Additional Expenditure Required for Schooling
                                   • Additional Expenditure Required, primary level
                                   • Additional Expenditure Required, secondary level
                                   • Total Additional Expenditure Required

                                   NSRS Unit Costs (government schooling)
                                   • NSRS Primary Student Cost
                                   • NSRS Secondary Student Cost




7.4        Key Features of the NSRS

7.4.1      A school resourcing standard based on delivering learning outcomes
           The NSRS is a cost framework applying to the recurrent costs of schooling. The Standard can be
           expressed as a single figure macro-level estimate of the recurrent costs of schooling based on
           delivering specified learning outcomes at the primary and secondary levels of schooling. The
           Standard can also be expressed as an average per student cost for the primary and secondary levels
           of schooling.
           The Standard makes use of the advances in student and school performance measurement that are
           now being consistently applied nationally. It links this performance data with student and school
           profiles, and school cost data. These data linkages enable a macro level estimate of the aggregate
           resourcing needs of the school sector. Most importantly, and for the first time, school resourcing
           need is measured in terms of what is required by schools nationally so that key learning and
           participation objectives can be realistically attained by all students.

7.4.2      An integrated national approach to measuring school resourcing needs
           The Standard specifies the aggregate costs of schooling across government sectors in all states. The
           internal calculations of the Standard do take into account the differential resourcing needs of students
           and schools in relation to specified learning and participation outcomes. These calculations have
           been based on (i) current costs, (ii) cost projections for emerging strategic priorities, and (iii)
           estimates of future additional resourcing needs to enable the required learning outcomes for all
           schools and students.

7.4.3      An evidence based approached to measuring school needs
           The Standard represents the most informed judgment of the actual costs of meeting the common
           commitments of government in the near future. The research underpinning the framework is the
           only common and objective evidence available for developing a detailed national resourcing data
           base and analysis in the interests of students and the community. The approach allows for evidence
           based resourcing policy, for the first time and on a national basis.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                            Final May 05, Page   127
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                  National School Resourcing Standard


7.4.4        A future oriented standard
             All costs are future oriented: they represent the investments that are currently foreseeable as
             necessary for achieving the National Goals. The costs and calculations, and therefore the Standard,
             are dynamic. The Standard changes as understanding of student learning needs increases and
             community expectations change.

7.4.5        Meeting the human resource needs of Australia
             The Standard has been framed in relation to the student, parent and community expectations for a
             quality education system for all. The future-based orientation of the Standard also takes into account
             the human resource needs of Australia. These human resource needs are increasingly being defined
             by the demands of an intensely competitive global economy that places a high premium on the skill
             base of available human resources. The competitive pressure on the Australian economy is one
             underlying dynamic that may require a continuing re-assessment of the Standard.

7.4.6        Need based funding for schools
             The NSRS will support understanding of policies for needs based resourcing of Australian schools
             into the future. The standard could not in itself constitute a needs framework - it would however
             provide a common and accepted reference point for understanding relative student resourcing need
             across all schools.

7.4.7        Effective education as the first priority
             The NSRS necessarily focuses on school and system effectiveness in delivering the National Goals
             of Schooling. The NSRS has regard to the variability in school effectiveness in meeting student
             learning outcomes and ensures that cost projections are adjusted to reflect only expenditures required
             to achieve effectiveness.

7.5          NSRS - Indicative Cost Estimates

             Indicative cost estimates have been calculated for recurrent funding of the NSRS for government
             schools across Australia.94 These represent the expected average recurrent costs for the
             implementation of the NSRS in the foreseeable future. Cost estimates are referred to as ‘adjusted
             recurrent costs’. These have been accounted for on an accrual basis consistent with ANR and NSSC
             tables, but exclude the cost items (i) user cost of capital, (ii) transport costs, and (iii) payroll tax. The
             necessary adjustments have been made to ANR and NSSC data to ensure comparability with the
             NSRS calculations. All NSRS costs have been adjusted where necessary so they are consistently
             expressed in 2003 constant prices. Appendix 7 specifies the data sources and formulae used for the
             calculations presented in this section.
             The total additional expenditure required to meet the NSRS is approximately $2.4 billion per annum
             in 2003 prices. This represents a 13% growth on estimated recurrent public expenditure (accrual
             basis, excluding user cost of capital, transport and payroll tax) on government schooling for 2003.




94
  The application of the NSRS to non-government schools is also possible but has not been attempted as part of this report because of data limitations.
This is discussed later in the report.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05, Page     128
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                    National School Resourcing Standard




              Table 7.1: Additional expenditure required to meet NSRS, government schools*
                School Level                                 National Additional            Percentage Growth on              Additional Unit Cost
                                                             Required Expend.                 existing recurrent               Per FTE student($)
                                                              ($ m per annum)                       Public
                                                                                                 Expenditure
                Primary level, Projected                               $ 1,160                       12%                                835
                Additional Expenditure,
                Projected Additional Expenditure,                      $ 1,213                         15%                              1385
                secondary level
                Total Additional Expenditure                           $ 2,373                         13%                              1048

            * Adjusted annual recurrent costs, 2003 prices (in-school and out of school, accrual basis accounting). Excluding user costs of capital,
            transport, payroll tax.

              A breakdown of the additional expenditure required for future ARN by primary and secondary levels
              is presented in the table below. Estimates are also provided of current national public expenditure by
              ARN type.
              Total ARN recurrent expenditure for 2003 was estimated nationally at nearly $3 billion. Additional
              required expenditure for future ARN is estimated at nearly $2.4 billion per annum which is almost an
              80% growth on 2003 national public expenditure allocations.95
              The greatest portion of additional required expenditure is for student related future ARN. Additional
              required public expenditure needs to grow by approximately $2 billion per annum. This is an
              approximate 90% increase on the estimated 2003 national allocations ($2.2 billion per annum).
              ICT and VET related expenses also need strong growth to meet NSRS levels (56% and 38%
              respectively) but these are coming off a much lower base of expenditure and do not pose as
              significant additional cost burdens.
              These estimates have been derived from the analysis of future ARN expenditure in this report. The
              estimate of current student related expenditure has been obtained by deducting current school
              related, ICT related and VET related expenditure from total current expenditure. The future school
              related needs are not shown because no estimate has been produced of any outstanding needs.

              Table 7.2: Current and future additional expenditure required by ARN type*
                   Student related            School related**               ICT related                  VET related                      Total
Level of          Current     Additional    Current       Additional      Current      Additional      Current      Additional      Current      Additional
Education           ($ m)         ($ m)       ($ m)           ($ m)         ($ m)          ($ m)         ($ m)          ($ m)         ($ m)          ($ m)
Primary         1,150.6            972     366.3             0          334.2       187.7                   0               0     1851.1       1160
Secondary         539.7           1062     304.0             0          210.8       118.4                84.5            32.3     1139.0       1213
Total           1,690.3           2034     670.3             0          545         306.1                84.5            32.3     2990.1       2373
            * Annual recurrent costs, 2003 prices (in-school and out of school, accrual basis accounting). Excluding user costs of capital and transport.
            Payroll tax incorporated in some elements of ICT and VET related.
            ** No provision made for additional school related future ARN expenditure (see discussion in report)

              The total cost of funding the NSRS is approximately $21.3 billion per annum in adjusted recurrent
              costs. This includes public expenditure and the continuation of estimated current levels of school
              generated revenues from non-public sources.
              The total NSRS is 116% of estimated actual recurrent expenditure for government schooling. This
              includes the school generated revenues and the required additional expenditure to provide for the
              NSRS.
              National public expenditure for government schooling would need to grow by 13% in real terms to
              meet the funding levels required by the NSRS.

95
  Figures do not include a portion of expenditure for these categories that may have been included as part of the Base cost figures. This is most likely to
apply to the student related ARN type. For example, schools that satisfied the Base criteria may have incorporated an element of expenditure for literacy
or numeracy programs that enabled them to perform effectively.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                       Final May 05, Page        129
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                               National School Resourcing Standard


           Table 7.3: Indicative total cost of NSRS*, government schools (adjusted annual recurrent costs, 2003
                       prices)
School Level/Cost Type                                       Actual              Actual           NSRS               NSRS          Percentage of
                                                         Recurrent            Recurrent       Recurrent       Unit Cost Per          2003 public
                                                       Expenditure          Expenditure            Cost        FTE student           expenditure
                                                      2003 ($ m per             per FTE        ($ m per                  ($)            for govt
                                                           annum)*           student ($)        annum)                                 schooling
Primary Level
Public Expenditure for Primary Schooling                         9,973               7,181         11,132                  8,016             112%
School generated revenues for Primary                              347                 250            347                    250               3%
Schooling**
Total Expenditure for Primary Schooling                         10,320               7,431         11,479                  8,265             115%

Secondary Level
Public Expenditure for Secondary Schooling                       8,294               9,474          9,507                 10,859             115%
School generated revenues Secondary                                286                 327            286                    327               3%
Schooling**
Total Expenditure for Secondary Schooling                        8,580               9,801          9,793                 11,186             118%

Total
Total Public Expenditure for Schooling                          18,267               8,067         20,639                  9,115             113%
Total school generated revenues for Schooling                      633                 280            633                    280               3%
Total Expenditure for Schooling                                 18,900               8,347         21,273                  9,395             116%
         * Estimates based on published ANR data, with projected growth in expenditure using average AGSRC indexation for previous three years.
         Excluding - user costs of capital, transport, payroll tax.
         * * Based on project estimates of national average for school generated resources at primary and secondary levels for school year 2003



           The additional expenditure on future ARN proposed by the NSRS will see the Base cost share of
           total expenditure decline to 80% for primary schooling (down from 83%) and to 82% for secondary
           (down from 87%).

           Table 7.4 Base Cost as proportion of aggregate cost, government schooling *(%)
                                                                 Primary                                           Secondary
            Base Cost ($ per capita)                              6,467                                               9,130
            NSRS ($ per capita)                                   8,016                                              11,186
            Base cost as % of NSRS                                 80%                                                82%
         *Recurrent cost only. Includes public and school generated sources of revenue. Base cost includes payroll tax.



           These estimates have been developed based on some definitions, parameters and assumptions
           specified below;
                • Annual recurrent costs refer to ‘in-school’ and ‘out of school’ costs as defined by
                     MCEETYA
                • Costs are expressed in terms of 2003 constant prices, with no provision for salary or other
                     price changes
                • Estimate of 2003 prices for currently funded costs is based on AGSRC indexation of
                     financial figures published in ANR 2001. Indexation equal to actual AGSRC increase for
                     2001-2002 and 3 year average for 2002-2003.
                • Estimates for the ICT and VET cost components of future additional resourcing needs refer
                     to forward estimates for the next several years.
                • Costs are ‘indicative’ as they are based on a first iteration of a complex cost analysis of
                     student related resourcing needs.
                • Capital costs have not been included in the costings (except for ICT where these could not
                     be extracted).



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                     Final May 05, Page     130
Resourcing The National Goals                                                       National School Resourcing Standard


                •     The number of actual primary school enrolments in the government sector remains
                      unchanged from those reported in 2001.
                •     An incremental increase in secondary school enrolments at years 11 and 12 consistent with
                      return on investment at the secondary level for the first three years of the introduction of
                      the NSRS.
                •     Cost estimates include current provision for disabled students. No calculation is possible at
                      this stage for unfunded future additional resourcing needs of disabled students.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                        Final May 05, Page   131
Resourcing The National Goals                                                                                                                        Appendices




                                                                  Appendices


  1.       THE NATIONAL GOALS FOR SCHOOLING ...............................................................................................................135

  2.       TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PROJECT .....................................................................................................................137

  3.       COMMITTEE STRUCTURE FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................138

  4.       CONSULTATION WITH INTEREST GROUPS .............................................................................................................140

  5.       ADDITIONAL RESOURCING NEED: STUDENT RELATED .........................................................................................141

  6.       ADDITIONAL RESOURCING NEED: ICT IN SCHOOLS ...............................................................................................146

  7.       NATIONAL SCHOOL RESOURCING STANDARD: COST CALCULATIONS - DATA SOURCES AND FORMULAE ..........154

  8.       LIST OF TECHNICAL PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS HELD BY SRT SECRETARIAT .......................................................157




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                              Final May 05, Page       132
Resourcing The National Goals                                                            Appendix 1:The National Goals for Schooling




Appendix 1                  The National Goals for Schooling




                                  Summary of the National Goals for Schooling

                   •    Schooling should develop fully the talents and capacities of all students

                   •    In terms of curriculum, students should have attained high standards of knowledge, skills and
                        understanding through a comprehensive and balanced curriculum in the compulsory years of schooling
                        encompassing the agreed eight key learning areas; attained the skills of numeracy and English literacy;
                        participated in programs of vocational learning and participated in programs and activities which foster
                        and develop enterprise skills.

                   •    Schooling should be socially just.


This statement of the National Goals for Schooling provides broad directions to guide schools and education
authorities in securing agreed outcomes for students, as set out in detail below:

1.    Schooling should develop fully the talents and capacities of all students. In particular,
when students leave schools they should:

1.1     have the capacity for, and skills in, analysis and problem solving and the ability to communicate ideas
and information, to plan and organise activities and to collaborate with others

1.2     have qualities of self-confidence, optimism, high self-esteem, and a commitment to personal
excellence as a basis for their potential life roles as family, community and workforce members

1.3      have the capacity to exercise judgement and responsibility in matters of morality, ethics and social
justice, and the capacity to make sense of their world, to think about how things got to be the way they are, to
make rational and informed decisions about their own lives and to accept responsibility for their own actions

1.4    be active and informed citizens with an understanding and appreciation of Australia's system of
government and civic life

1.5     have employment related skills and an understanding of the work environment, career options and
pathways as a foundation for, and positive attitudes towards, vocational education and training, further
education, employment and life-long learning

1.6   be confident, creative and productive users of new technologies, particularly information and
communication technologies, and understand the impact of those technologies on society

1.7     have an understanding of, and concern for, stewardship of the natural environment, and the knowledge
and skills to contribute to ecologically sustainable development

1.8      have the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to establish and maintain a healthy lifestyle, and for
the creative and satisfying use of leisure time.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                      Final May 05, Page     133
Resourcing The National Goals                                              Appendix 1:The National Goals for Schooling




2.      In terms of curriculum, students should have:
2.1     attained high standards of knowledge, skills and understanding through a comprehensive and balanced
curriculum in the compulsory years of schooling encompassing the agreed eight key learning areas:
                    • the arts;
                    • English;
                    • health and physical education;
                    • languages other than English;
                    • mathematics;
                    • science;
                    • studies of society and environment;
                    • technology;
                    • and the interrelationships between them

2.2      attained the skills of numeracy and English literacy; such that, every student should be numerate, able
to read, write, spell and communicate at an appropriate level

2.3     participated in programs of vocational learning during the compulsory years and have had access to
vocational education and training programs as part of their senior secondary studies

2.4     participated in programs and activities which foster and develop enterprise skills, including those
skills which will allow them maximum flexibility and adaptability in the future.



3.       Schooling should be socially just, so that:

3.1      students' outcomes from schooling are free from the effects of negative forms of discrimination based
on sex, language, culture and ethnicity, religion or disability; and of differences arising from students' socio-
economic background or geographic location

3.2      the learning outcomes of educationally disadvantaged students improve and, over time, match those of
other students

3.3      Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students have equitable access to, and opportunities in, schooling
so that their learning outcomes improve and, over time, match those of other students

3.4     all students understand and acknowledge the value of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures to
Australian society and possess the knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to and benefit from,
reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians

3.5    all students understand and acknowledge the value of cultural and linguistic diversity, and possess the
knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to, and benefit from, such diversity in the Australian
community and internationally

3.6     all students have access to the high quality education necessary to enable the completion of school
education to Year 12 or its vocational equivalent and that provides clear and recognised pathways to
employment and further education and training.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                        Final May 05, Page   134
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                  Appendix 2 Terms of Reference for Project




Appendix 2                  Terms of Reference for Project


           The MCEETYA Taskforce on Schools Resourcing is to report to each meeting of the Council on
           approaches to the resourcing of schools that will ensure the achievement of the agreed National
           Goals for Schooling. Specifically, the Taskforce will provide detailed advice on:

               • the costs associated with providing high quality education to students in Australia, with
                  particular emphasis on cost variations generated by factors such as geographic location,
                  socio-economic background, special needs, cultural background and language skills. The
                  analysis should cover in detail all levels of schooling
               • current funding levels for schools education in Australia by source of funding, school sector
                  (State, Catholic and Independent) and the nature of school population
               • principles for government funding of schooling to ensure efficient, effective and equitable
                  schooling provision for all students, based on an understanding of each government’s
                  responsibilities to the government and non government sectors
               • funding models that enhance the completion of Year 12 (or equivalent), particularly by the
                  students who are at high risk of not completing Year 12 (or equivalent)
               • models of and protocols for funding arrangements for schools in the context of changing
                  revenue and expenditure arrangements between Commonwealth and State governments
                  generally
               • the management of related resources such as intellectual property
               • international benchmarking (best practice).

           The Taskforce will work collaboratively with the Taskforce on Performance Measurement and
           Reporting.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                       Final May 05, Page   135
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                               Appendix 3 Committee Structure for Project Management




Appendix 3                   Committee structure for project management


1                  Schools Resourcing Taskforce (SRT)

                    Organisation/State/Territory                                 Representative

                    Chair and NSW                                                Mr Andrew Cappie-Wood *
                    NSW                                                          Ms Leslie Loble
                    Victoria                                                     Mr Michael Kane
                    Queensland                                                   Ms Rita Logan **
                    Northern Territory                                           Mr Ken Simpson
                    South Australia                                              Mr Gino DeGennaro ***
                    Tasmania                                                     Mr Simon Barnsley
                    ACT                                                          Mr Rob Donelly ****
                    Western Australia                                            Mr Peter Mc Caffrey *****
                    NCEC                                                         Mr Geoff Joy ******
                    NCISA*******                                                 Mr Bill Daniels
                    DEST                                                         Mr Chris Evans
                    MCEETYA Secretariat                                          Mr Maurice Wenn
                    Executive Officer                                            Mr Tom Alegounarias

                   *         Replaced Ms Jan McClelland
                   **        Replaced Dr Ian Cosier
                   ***       Replaced Ms Helga Kolbe
                   ****      Replaced Mr Trevor Wheeler
                   *****     Replaced Mr Ron Mance
                   ******    Replaced Ms Therese Temby
                   *******   Subsequently known as ISCA




2                  Schools Resourcing Taskforce Secretariat

                   Principal Analyst – conceptualisation & project management    Mr Adam Rorris
                   Senior Project Officer                                        Mr Andrew Dowling
                   Project Officer                                               Ms Susan Wright




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                 Final May 05, Page   136
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                Appendix 3 Committee Structure for Project Management




3                  SRT Project Steering Committee

                   Organisation/State/Territory         Representative


                   Chair and NSW                        Mr Tom Alegounarias
                   Victoria                             Mr Robert Macbeth
                   Queensland                           Dr Ian Cosier*
                   South Australia                      Mr Mark Witham**
                   Tasmania                             Mr Simon Barnsley
                   ACT                                  Mr Andrew Clarke***
                   Western Australia                    Mr Keith Sullivan
                   NCEC                                 Ms Therese Temby****
                   NCISA*****                           Mr Bill Daniels
                   DEST                                 Mr Chris Evans
                   SRT Secretariat                      Mr Adam Rorris


                   *                    Replaced subsequently by Ms Rita Logan
                   **                   Replaced subsequently by Mr Phil Campbell
                   ***                  Replaced subsequently by Mr Stephen Tregea-Collett, Mr Rob Donelly
                   ****                 Replaced subsequently by Mr Geoff Joy
                   *****                Subsequently known as ISCA


4                  SRT Project Reference Group

                   Organisation/State/Territory         Representative

                   Chair and NSW                        Mr Tom Alegounarias
                   New South Wales                      Mr Doug Newton
                   New South Wales                      Mr Vince Blackburn
                   New South Wales                      Mr Paul Wheelan
                   New South Wales                      Mr Ray Gillies
                   South Australia                      Mr Mark Witham
                   Queensland                           Dr Ian Cosier
                   CEC Queensland                       Mr Vic Lorenz
                   DEST                                 Mr Chris Evans
                   DEST                                 Ms Dominique Oriel
                   Western Australia                    Mr Keith Sullivan
                   Northern Territory                   Ms Nicole Hurwood
                   Victoria                             Mr Robert Anderson
                   Victoria                             Ms Pam Keating
                   ABS                                  Mr John Fahy
                   AIS NSW                              Mr Ray Whitfield
                   CEC Victoria                         Mr David Wilkes
                   NCISA                                Ms Pauline Nesdale
                   SRT Secretariat                      Mr Adam Rorris




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                   Final May 05, Page   137
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling - Appendices                          Appendix 4 Consultations with Interest Groups




Appendix 4                  Consultations with Interest Groups

 Interest Group                                       Date of Consultation        Nature of Consultation
 Independent Education Union                          Monday 17 February 2003     Meeting with representatives
 Australian Education Union                           Monday 17 February 2003     Meeting with representatives
 Australian Primary Principals' Assoc                 Wednesday 19 Feb 2003       Meeting with representatives
 Australian Council of State School Organisations     Wednesday 19 Feb 2003       Meeting with representatives
 Australian Secondary Principals' Association         Thursday 20 February 2003   Meeting with representatives
 Council of Catholic School Parents                   Thursday 20 February 2003   Meeting with representatives
 Australian Parents Council                           Monday 24 February 2003     Meeting with representatives
 National Council of Independent Schools              Wednesday 26 March 2003     Presentation to members at NCISA meeting
 Associations*
 Australian Government Primary Principals             February 2003               Telephone discussions with President
 Association
 Australian Primary Principals Association            8 March 2003                Presentation to members at APPA meeting

* Subsequently known as Independent Schools Council of Australia




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                Final May 05, Page   138
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                   Appendix 5 Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related




Appendix 5                      Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related

Initiatives included in the analysis


 Type of       Name of
                                  Brief Description
 Initiative    Initiative

 Whole
 System


                                  The ELI is a Commonwealth funded initiative focused on improving literacy achievements for
               Early Learning
                                  students in participating low socio-economic status schools through professional development
               Initiative
                                  support for teachers in the kindergarten to Year 3 years.

                                  Literacy Net is a project that recognises that the area of assessment and diagnosis in Literacy is
                                  problematic for many primary teachers. Literacy Net is a support program developed by the
               Literacy Net       Department of Education and Training in WA to assist teachers from Yr 4-7 in monitoring student
                                  progress in Literacy, identifying students at risk and developing appropriate learning programs
                                  focused on the particular needs of students.

                                  The Literacy Advance Strategy is the sector-wide strategic literacy plan being implemented by the
                                  Catholic Education Commission of Victoria (CECV). The strategy was introduced in 1998 as a
                                  systematic approach to improving literacy teaching and student achievement in Victorian Catholic
               Literacy           Schools. The development of the strategy in recent years has focused on the changing needs of
               Advance            schools implementing the Children’s Literacy Success Strategy (CLaSS), Literacy in Years 3 to 4
                                  and Middle Years Literacy (5-9). Literacy Advance has a particular focus on ensuring success in the
                                  early years of schooling (p-2). The Children's Literacy Success Strategy (CLaSS) is a major project
                                  of Literacy Advance

                                  Success in Numeracy Education has been developed to assist school communities to reflect on their
                                  current numeracy provision and to support them in lifting the numeracy achievement of all students,
               Success in         especially those who may be at risk. SINE 5-6 concentrates on the upper primary grades, years 5 &
               Numeracy           6. The SINE strategy trains 2 numeracy focus teachers in each school to deliver spaced numeracy
                                  modules to whole school staff.

                                  The Middle Years Reform Program provides funding for additional classroom teachers in secondary
               Middle Years
                                  and P-12 schools to support students in Years 7-9 to improve their literacy levels and attendance
               Reform
                                  and retention levels. Nine briefing days (one per region) were held for schools in 2001.
                                  A multiple perspectives model has been developed to link CCE to other curriculum perspectives
                                  aimed to increase the take-up and sustainability of the program. This conceptual framework for
               Discovering
                                  exploring the place of multiple perspectives in curriculum is being developed by the Catholic
               Democracy
                                  Education Office, Melbourne. Central to this model is the ‘ideal community’, one that acknowledges
                                  the past, engages critically with the present and creates inclusive and preferred futures.

                                  Provision of targeted ESL professional support to primary and secondary teachers of ESL students
               ESL                (specialist ESL and class teachers) through ESL teacher orientation programs, ESL in the
               Professional       Mainstream courses, professional update seminars, ESL syllabus support programs, school based
               Support            professional action learning projects, teacher professional support networks and provision of
                                  targeted curriculum development support .
               Multi-Cultural
                                  Development and provision of multicultural and anti-racism education resources. Provision of
               Education
                                  targeted anti-racism professional support to teachers and implementation of community harmony
               Policy and
                                  initiatives.
               Resources




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                        Final May 05, Page   139
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                     Appendix 5 Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related




 Type of       Name of
                                  Brief Description
 Initiative    Initiative

               Indigenous
               Education
                                  The Indigenous Education Strategic Initiative aims at improving the quality of education leading to
               Strategic
                                  improvement in the learning outcomes of Indigenous students.
               Initiative
               Program
               Indigenous         A teacher provides professional support for teachers of Indigenous students with strategies to
               Literacy and       enhance literacy and numeracy learning. Assistance is also provided in the development of
               Numeracy           individual learning plans where necessary.
 Targeted
 Schools
               Getting it Right   Specialist Teacher FTE allocated to schools with identified needs. 21 days of PD provided over two
               Literacy and       years to Specialist Teachers. Specialists focus on literacy OR numeracy over a minimum of two
               Numeracy           years, working shoulder-to-shoulder with classroom colleagues to address the needs of children who
               Strategy           are struggling. Participating schools set improvement targets, and report progress in relation to
               State-funded       those targets through annual quality assurance procedures. Specialist Teacher FTE rolled-out over
               initiative         4 years, reaching 200 FTE by 2005.


               Commonwealth       Direct grants made to schools at which the 50% of children whose socio-economic circumstances
               Literacy and       reflect disadvantage. School allocations based on magnitude of disadvantage (evident through H-
               Numeracy           index) factored against school enrolment with weighting for P and yr 1 to reflect focus on early years.
               Program            Schools determine nature of program based on local knowledge of needs and opportunities. Exact
                                  nature of programs not centrally collected, but an evaluation to determine spread and prevalence of
                                  programs due to report in December 2003.


               Year 5             Schools provided with additional funds to provide intervention programs targeted at the lowest 15%
               intervention       of students on year 5 tests in literacy and numeracy.




                                  Program to support 541 PSFP schools serving the highest concentrations of students from low
                                  socio-economic status families. Funding is applied to direct financial assistance to PSFP schools,
               Priority Schools   consultancy support, training and development, school network meetings and projects. An additional
               Funding            280 teachers are provided by the state to PSFP schools to assist with literacy and numeracy
               program            learning. Training and development support focuses on improving literacy, numeracy and
                                  participation through quality teaching and learning, home, school and community partnerships and
                                  classroom and school organisation and school culture.
               Assessing
               Numeracy in        Commonwealth funded numeracy research project. Action research in 10 schools across
               Primary            government, Catholic and independent jurisdictions.
               Schools
                                  The Flying Start resource is a staffing allocation made to schools to support literacy teaching and
                                  learning for Years K - 2. Teachers in these years are supported by District Literacy Officers who
               Flying Start
                                  provide support to Flying Start teams and co-ordinate and facilitate district and school-based
                                  professional learning.

                                  This initiative is trialing in 16 urban, rural and remote schools within the Territory. Numeracy Project
               Count Me in
                                  Officers and Early childhood teaching teams within schools are assessing students’ numeracy
               Too
                                  learning needs and planning programs of work based on the assessment data.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                          Final May 05, Page    140
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                    Appendix 5 Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related




 Type of       Name of
                                 Brief Description
 Initiative    Initiative

                                 Students studying for their HSC can participate in free tutorial sessions in a number of HSC
               After Hours
                                 subjects. Funds are provided to qualified tutors to give individual or small group tuition, additional to
               HSC Coaching
                                 the regular teaching program.

                                 The Access to Excellence initiative provides funding for 300 teachers in 118 schools to provide
                                 additional support for students in Years 7-10 who are at particular risk of not achieving expected
               Access to         levels in literacy and numeracy or who have high rates of absence or may be at risk of not
               Excellence        completing Year 12 or its equivalent. Access to Excellence teachers attended a statewide
                                 professional development day (held over three days to accommodate all participants). The days
                                 highlighted where teachers could seek additional support for the initiative.
 Targeted
 Groups
               Aboriginal        This program provides a suite of initiatives to improve the literacy and numeracy achievement of
               literacy and      Aboriginal students. It includes direct financial assistance to schools, training and development,
               numeracy          consultancy services and school network meetings.
                                 In 2002 there was a proposal for Enrolment Benchmarking Adjustment funding to establish a
                                 Numeracy Links Project along the lines of the Koorie Literacy Links Project. Funding was received
                                 for 9 schools to be involved to improve the numeracy outcomes for Koorie students in Years 5-6
                                 using videoconferencing technology. It has been continued as a National Indigenous English
                                 Literacy and Numeracy Strategy initiative for the 2001-2004 period. Each of the 8 schools has a
               Koorie Middle
                                 School Community Action Team that is made up of a Koorie Educator, Middle Years Numeracy Co
               Years Link
                                 coordinator, Local Aboriginal Education Consultative Group (LAECG) Chairperson, Koorie Education
               Project
                                 Development Officer and at least one teacher. Each School Community Action Team is also
                                 required to develop a School Community Action Plan (SCAP) that identifies key strategies designed
                                 to engage participants in creative, collaborative, numeracy focused teaching and learning activities.
                                 The school communities are located across the state from areas as far apart as Mildura, Grasmere
                                 and Bairnsdale.
                                 This project was first implemented as a Strategic Results Project in 1998. It has been continued as
                                 a National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy initiative for the 2001-2004 period.
                                 The project involves the use of Video Conferencing as a tool in improving Literacy Outcomes. 14
                                 schools are involved within the Project. Each school has a School Community Action Team, that is
                                 made up of a Koorie Educator, Early Years Co ordinator, Local Aboriginal Education Consultative
               Koorie Literacy
                                 Group (LAECG) Chairperson, Koorie Education Development Officer and at least one Teacher.
               Links Project
                                 Each School Community Action Team is also required to develop a School Community Action Plan
                                 (SCAP) that identifies key strategies that incorporate the use of video conferencing to improve
                                 literacy outcomes and engage students in creative, collaborative, literacy focused projects. 12
                                 government schools and 2 Catholic schools are participating across the state in areas such as
                                 Mildura, Heywood and Lakes Entrance.
                                 In 2002 there was a proposal for Enrolment Benchmarking Adjustment funding to establish a
                                 Numeracy Links Project along the lines of the Koorie Literacy Links Project. Funding was received
                                 for 9 schools to be involved to improve the numeracy outcomes for Koorie students in Years 5-6
                                 using videoconferencing technology. It has been continued as a National Indigenous English
                                 Literacy and Numeracy Strategy initiative for the 2001-2004 period. Each of the 8 schools has a
               Koorie
                                 School Community Action Team, that is made up of a Koorie Educator, Middle Years Numeracy
               Numeracy
                                 Coordinator, Local Aboriginal Education Consultative Group (LAECG) Chairperson, Koorie
               Links
                                 Education Development Officer and at least one teacher. Each School Community Action Team is
                                 also required to develop a School Community Action Plan (SCAP) that identifies key strategies
                                 designed to engage participants in creative, collaborative, numeracy focused teaching and learning
                                 activities. The school communities are located across the state from areas as far apart as Mildura,
                                 Grasmere and Bairnsdale.
                                 The program supports young people in the Fairfield school district to complete high school with an
               Gateways          integrated set of strategies that includes case management, individual education plans, mentoring,
                                 vocational and life skills courses, family and community development and staff development.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                          Final May 05, Page   141
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                   Appendix 5 Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related




 Type of       Name of
                                 Brief Description
 Initiative    Initiative

               Multicultural     Provision of multicultural education aides to support ESL learners in classrooms, and facilitate better
               Education         communication between schools and parents/guardians who do not speak English.
               Aides
               Working
               Together for      To assist 1,600 Indigenous students to stay on and complete Year 12 or move into further
               Indigenous        education, training or paid employment.
               Youth
               Plan It Youth     The program matches trained adults from the local community to mentor young people at risk. The
               Mentoring         community mentors help the young people to plan their education and training pathways and to deal
               Program           with the challenges of school and relationships with peers and teachers.
                                 Aboriginal people are employed as Aboriginal Educations Assistants (AEAs). They assist classroom
                                 teachers with a special focus on improving the literacy and numeracy outcomes of Aboriginal
               Aboriginal        students. AEAs also provide liaison services between the schools and their local Aboriginal
               Education         communities. 312 positions have been established in primary, central and high schools where there
               Assistants        are relatively large numbers of Aboriginal students. There is considerable unmet demand from
                                 schools with a similar Aboriginal population but unable to be allocated an AEA because of resource
                                 availability.

                                 This state-initiated innovative project aims to develop traditional literacy skills and increase student
                                 engagement and participation through film production. That is, in making short films, the students
               PSFP              learn reading, writing, speaking and listening literacy skills using a wide range of printed and visual
               Cineliteracy      texts. A draft Cineliteracy teaching resource and a Cineliteracy case study and evaluation report
               Project           have been developed as a result of this project. It is anticipated that teaching resource materials will
                                 be published in 2004. The Cineliteracy project was conducted in Clarence/Coffs Harbour, Port
                                 Macquarie, Dubbo Shellharbour and Port Jackson Districts.
                                 Services in this area are aimed at improving learning outcomes for Indigenous students. Key
                                 elements of NIELNS and IESIP drive the initiatives. Culturally inclusive curricula is promoted via
               Indigenous        teacher PD in Network days (up to 4 per year) aimed at improving teacher knowledge and
               Education         awareness. Literacy initiatives are met via Pd on the Guiding Tracks resource developed by the
               Student           CECV, while numeracy research has been undertaken and delivery will commence via main-stream
               Support           provision. Student support is provided via grants to schools, the employment of Koorie Education
               Program           Workers, Indigenous Education Officers, Support advisors, and teacher aids at the school level.
                                 Print and digital resources have been developed to support all of the above. Links to community are
                                 fostered in all the work undertaken including links to VAEAI.
                                 Provision of targeted curriculum-based English language and literacy assistance to students with
               ESLTargeted       English as a second language and literacy learning needs through teaching programs delivered in
               Support           groups, classes, courses and cross-school professional support programs in primary and secondary
                                 schools.
 Targeted
 Individuals

                                 The 4 IECs provide intensive English tuition to students with minimal English prior to entering
               Introductory
                                 mainstream schools. Classes are based on ratio of 12 students to 1 teacher and resourced by a
               English
                                 bilingual special teachers' assistant.
               Intensive         On arrival provision of curriculum-based English language instruction to secondary aged newly
               English for       arrived students with little or no English through secondary Intensive English centres and the
               New Arrivals      Intensive English High school.
               Isolated ESL
                                 New arrivals program - Isolated ESL Learner Support
               Learner




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                         Final May 05, Page   142
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                   Appendix 5 Additional Resourcing Need: Student Related




 Type of       Name of
                                 Brief Description
 Initiative    Initiative

                                 The Reading Recovery program is an early intervention program for year 1 students who are
               Reading           experiencing difficulties to read and write. Reading Recovery is designed to target the lowest 20% of
               Recovery          literacy performers in a school. Students in the program receive one to one tutoring, by specially
                                 trained teachers, five days per week for 30 minutes each day for 12 to 20 weeks.


                                 A joint trial between the University of Canberra's Scaffolding Literacy in Schools Project and DEET.
                                 The project commenced in July 2001 in two schools, and is now being implemented in six schools in
                                 both urban and remote contexts in the NT. The project has a strong focus on teacher development
                                 and gathering evidence of the effectiveness of the approach to improve student outcomes. The
               Accelerated       methodology is a highly supportive approach that 'scaffolds' students to read age appropriate texts
               Literacy          through extensive book orientation activities. These involve discussion and learning negotiations
                                 that aim to develop common knowledge between students and teacher about the author's intentions
                                 and the meaning and structure of language features in the text. Once students can read a passage
                                 from the class text this is used as a model text to teach them about spelling and writing, including
                                 the choices made by authors to realise their intentions in the writing.


               Pilot Mentor      Commonwealth funded Indigenous student mentor program for students of around 15 years of age;
               Program           adult volunteer Indigenous mentors


               Year 12 Mentor    Commonwealth funded mentor program for Year 12 Indigenous students leaving school, to assist
               Program           them to consider pathways to further education, training or careers


                                 This project supports intensive oral English language program for eligible Indigenous language
               ESL for
                                 speaking students in their first year of formal schooling in the NT. This project provides additional
               Indigenous
                                 teachers in schools, resource and Part time Instructor grants to schools and regional, central and
               Language
                                 school based professional development in the teaching and assessing of oral English language for
               Speaking
                                 Indigenous language speaking students. 3 ESL Advisors are employed through the project.
               Students

                                 This initiative is aimed at Year 7 students most at risk of not achieving satisfactory literacy
                                 achievement levels in selected schools. The initiative provides additional funding for 100 extra
                                 teachers in 101 schools to enable trained teachers to provide intervention for identified year 7
                                 students. One briefing day was held for Restart school principals and teachers in February 2002. A
               Restart
                                 professional development program on analysis of testing data was held for regional support staff in
                                 2002. Two professional development programs for Restart teachers were held in five locations in
                                 2002 and in five locations in 2003.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                        Final May 05, Page   143
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                         Appendix 6 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




Appendix 6                     Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools

1            Towards a National Framework for Cost Data
            The development of an agreed framework for the identification of the key areas of ICT costs would
            have substantial benefits for resource planning in the schools sector:

                  •     It would allow jurisdictions to gradually improve their systems for identifying and
                        summarising costs;
                  •     It would assist jurisdictions to provide cost breakdowns in a more systematic way with less
                        effort; and
                  •     It would further increase confidence in the reported costs.

            Particular improvement could be achieved in the area of professional development, where there is
            significant uncertainty about actual levels of expenditure.

2            Analysis of Historical Cost Data
            Consideration was given to developing estimates of the true national cost trends on a normalised
            basis with respect to student numbers by including costs and corresponding student numbers only for
            jurisdictions providing data for a given year. However, the inclusion in later years of cost and
            enrolment data from jurisdictions in which the expenditure per student differs significantly from the
            earlier averages tends to skew the average and therefore the trend. Therefore annual averages of
            later year costs were included in the Cost Summary Tables in earlier years where data were not
            provided.

3            National Policy on ICT in Schools

            The National Goals for Schooling

            The goals of The Adelaide Declaration (1999) on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First
            Century96 which have specific relevance to the ICT area are the following:
            • Schooling should develop fully the talents and capacities of all students. In particular, when
              students leave schools they should “... be confident, creative and productive users of new
              technologies, particularly information and communication technologies, and understand the
              impact of those technologies on society.”
            • In terms of curriculum, students should have “... attained high standards of knowledge, skills and
               understanding through a comprehensive and balanced curriculum in the compulsory years of
               schooling encompassing the agreed eight key learning areas, including Technology.”

            MCEETYA Ministers Joint Statement on Education and Training in the Information
            Economy

            In December 2000, MCEETYA Ministers presented a Joint Statement on Education and Training in
            the Information Economy97 which outlined a number of areas for cooperation between the school
            sector, the VET sector, the higher education sector and the Commonwealth.



96
   The Adelaide Declaration (1999) on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century. MCEETYA (1999)
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/nationalgoals/index.htm
97
   MCEETYA Ministers Joint Statement on Education and Training in the Information Economy (December 2000)
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/ministers/kemp/dec00/k0249_061200.htm



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                           Final May 05, Page   144
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                            Appendix 6 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




            Ministers agreed that the following were the highest priorities for cooperation during 2001-2003:
                • Ensuring that the education and training sector is able to provide all learners with
                     opportunities to develop their ability to use technology confidently and creatively, and to
                     develop the specialist skills needed to service the needs of the information economy.
                • Supporting education and training workers, especially teachers, to acquire and maintain the
                     skills needed to take full advantage of the potential of ICT to transform learning.
                • Providing effective and affordable access to the Internet for all learners, regardless of their
                     geographic location.
                • Promoting collaboration in the development and dissemination of high quality digital
                     educational content, services and applications that enable Australian learners to gain
                     maximum education benefits from the online revolution, while also developing a market
                     and generating export income.
                • Sharing leading practice and research on ICT issues.
                • Working across agencies at all levels of government to ensure the development of a policy
                     and regulatory framework that supports the uptake of ICT in education and training.

            Learning In an Online World

            With reference to the broader requirements for ICT in education, Learning for the Knowledge
            Society98: an education and training plan for the information economy, was launched as a focus for
            change. It comprises an action plan for the education and training sector as a whole. Learning in an
            Online World: A School Education Action Plan for the Information Economy is the schools’ sector
            component of Learning for the Knowledge Society.


            The action plan was developed by the Education Network Australia (EdNA) Schools Advisory
            Group and endorsed by MCEETYA at its March 2000 meeting. It sets out priorities, responsibilities
            and key action areas for ICT in schools, and in particular for Connectivity, Content and Professional
            Development requirements in the school sector, and is supported by several key documents,
            particularly the MCEETYA ICT in Schools Taskforce Learning Architecture Framework99, and
            Bandwidth Action Plan100.
            Learning in an Online World affirms the highest priorities for schools to be Bandwidth, Professional
            Development, and Online Content, and identifies the following overarching strategies:
                • Strengthen programs for schools to adopt new paradigms of learning using information and
                     communication technologies (ICT).
                • Commit resources to the three key areas of professional development, infrastructure and
                     curriculum content in a balanced and integrated way.
                • Undertake and disseminate research related to the links between the use of ICT and
                     learning outcomes.

            Of the ICT goals set out in Learning in an Online World, all have some degree of cost impact in the
            schools sector. Those goals considered directly relevant to the costs at a school level which were the
            subject of this study are set out below for the three Priority Areas as a point of broad reference with
            respect to future requirements:




98
   Learning for the Knowledge Society: an education and training plan for the information economy http://www.dest.gov.au/edu/edactplan.htm
99
   Learning Architecture Framework, MCEETYA ICT in Schools Taskforce, August 2003, Curriculum Corporation:
http://icttaskforce.edna.edu.au/documents/learning_architecture.pdf
100
    Bandwidth Action Plan, MCEETYA ICT in Schools Taskforce, August 2003, Curriculum Corporation
http://icttaskforce.edna.edu.au/documents/bandwidth/bandwidth_plan.pdf



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                 Final May 05, Page    145
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                        Appendix 6 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




Bandwidth
                  •     Sufficient bandwidth must be available at affordable rates, to enable all schools to integrate
                        online services into their curriculum practice.
                  •     All school education providers will have access to adequate levels of bandwidth to support
                        teaching and learning and business processes.
                  •     School sector telecommunications costs will be comparable with Australia’s international
                        competitors.
                  •     The hardware, technical tools and technical support will be provided to integrate
                        information and communication technologies into school curriculum practice and to
                        provide services to students in open and distance learning.

Professional Development
              • Effective pre-service teacher education and ongoing development for all members of the
                  teaching profession are critical to achieving the student outcomes required.
              • All teachers will be competent users of information and communication technologies and
                  able to apply these technologies to improve student learning.
              • All educational leaders will understand how information and communication technologies
                  impact on learning and will have the confidence and capabilities to lead and manage the
                  changes required to maximise the benefits of these technologies in school education.
Online Content
              • All school teachers and students must have access to quality digital education resources
                  that support curriculum outcomes. The development of such resources must support
                  Australia’s unique identity in the global information economy.
              • A viable market will be established for the generation of quality online curriculum content
                  for Australian school education.
              • All students will have access to quality digital education materials that support Australian
                  school curricula and that optimise opportunities provided by new technologies for learning.
              • Schools and schooling systems will provide education services using efficient and effective
                  online business practices.

            ICT in VET in Schools

            Under the auspices of ANTA, the national Information Technology and Telecommunications
            Industry Training Advisory Board (IT&Titab) coordinates vocational education and training (VET)
            strategies and activities for the Australian IT&T industry101. It has an interest in the provision of
            quality training in the ICT field in VET, as more than 95 per cent of Australia’s secondary schools
            offering senior secondary programs now offer vocational education and training (VET) to their
            senior students, with almost 9,500 students undertaking IT&T training in VET in school programs.

4            Issues Driving Change for ICT in Schools

            Changing approaches to pedagogy and opportunities to take advantage of new technologies are
            driving the increased use of ICT in schools.


            The adoption of a framework of national policies favouring the use of ICT as a tool for transforming
            teaching and learning has led in recent years to the provision of substantial numbers of computers in
            schools and their interconnection through networks at the school level and across each jurisdiction,
            initially at narrowband speeds generally using ISDN services.

101
   Executive Summary National VET Plan for Industry Information Technology and Telecommunications Industry
http://www.anta.gov.au/images/publications/IT_T_final_version_Exec_Summary.pdf



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                         Final May 05, Page   146
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                         Appendix 6 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




               Further developments will be guided by the agreed priority action areas of Contemporary Learning –
               Learning in an online world 2003-06102 to be published in 2004.


               Discussed below are several aspects of this increasing adoption of ICT which are currently key
               drivers of change in the provision and use of ICT in Australian schools.

               Implementation of Online Learning


               To meet the fundamental requirements of teaching and learning, including in particular the need to
               manage the learning process and to evaluate the outcomes, a highly integrated approach is
               required103 to the design and development of the necessary systems, including information and
               communications systems. Further development of standards for ICT in the sector and the
               achievement of their wide adoption are of fundamental strategic importance in maintaining
               efficiency, controlling costs, and allowing inter-operability as the development of e-learning systems
               proceeds. The design, development, implementation and management of the software and
               infrastructure required to successfully introduce e-learning to schools on a significant scale is a
               major challenge for the sector.

               Increasing Use of the Internet
               The Internet has only begun to have a significant impact in school-based education since about the
               mid-1990s. The rapidly growing universe of material on the Worldwide Web, although an
               undisciplined resource of variable quality, has become the most common current online teaching and
               learning resource available in schools. The demand for access to information through the Internet
               for teaching and learning has been the principal driver for the ongoing development of ICT
               infrastructure and access bandwidth in the school sector, and is laying the foundation for the delivery
               and use of pedagogical resources and tools for online learning.
               Student and teacher e-mail is growing rapidly as a tool for personal and group interaction in an
               educational context at all levels from local school communication to international contact.

               New Knowledge and Skills
               In addition to basic computer familiarity and skills, there are distinct skill sets required for teachers
               for the use of e-learning tools and network resources, and for their effective utilisation in new
               approaches to teaching and learning. The way in which the school sector addresses the professional
               development requirements associated with online learning will have a significant impact on both the
               success and the speed with which general adoption of the emerging tools and techniques can take
               place in line with national goals.

               Broadband Wide Area Networking
               A range of broadband and near-broadband DSL services emerging recently in the Australian market
               assist in meeting demands for information and communications for teaching and learning purposes
               and are being adopted as the basis of the bandwidth improvement programs currently under way
               throughout the sector, which are laying a strategic foundation for increased future delivery of online
               content.
               Complementary improvements in school network infrastructure are being undertaken to exploit the
               potential of broadband access, particularly the cabling and server/proxy server infrastructure in
               schools.
               Several State/territory Government Departments of Education have created true broadband State-
               wide Virtual Private Networks with any-to-any connectivity, along with a central data centre with


102
      To be published by MCEETYA in 2004.
103
      See, for example Learning Architecture Framework, Learning In An Online World, MCEETYA 2003



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                          Final May 05, Page   147
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                             Appendix 6 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




                ASP-style104 applications. In some jurisdictions, a large number of analogue and ISDN connections
                are being upgraded in 2003 using ADSL connections. ADSL has limitations in heavy use situations
                because it is generally not provided with stringent service level guarantees.
                In remote areas of Australia, only a few schools have access to true broadband, whilst the majority
                are now using one-way or two-way satellite. In the case of Northern Territory, all schools use a two-
                way satellite connection to the VPN.
                The five jurisdictions105 which run Schools of the Air have recently been transitioning from HF
                radio and basic services to completely new modes of service delivery using two-way satellite
                combined with a studio using a proprietary product for class management.
                The new broadband services support shared access at bandwidths which typically approach an
                average of 10 kbit/s per student online. While user access at these speeds will not meet all
                requirements in the sector, assuming school networks are adequate it will transform the Internet
                experience for students and teachers previously labouring at ISDN or modem speeds.

               Other Technology and Market Changes
                Jurisdictions identified many lesser factors arising from change in both technologies and markets as
                issues for the planning and management of ICT, including the following:

                •   availability of low-cost IP-based services;
                •   availability of ‘dark’ fibre;
                •   new-generation satellite services as a real alternative to terrestrial services;
                •   availability of wireless local area networks;
                •   commencement of wireless broadband services;
                •   changing cost structures, including whole-of-government contracts and market price
                    discontinuities created by new regional carriers;
                •   new projects associated with online content delivery;
                •   recognition of the need for more professional development;
                •   trials of remote systems management technology;
                •   need for more ICT support;
                •   rising Internet costs despite the downward trend in rates;
                •   requirements of software licensing including, for example, spam and virus protection;
                •   increasing use of commercial online services; and
                •   the increasing use of video technologies in schools.

5               Priority Area – Connectivity

               Elements and Costs of Connectivity

               ICT Infrastructure

               Computers
                All jurisdictions reported substantial investment in computers in the last several years, leading to a
                situation where most teachers and students now have ready access to a computer at school.
                Significant expenditure was reported on improvements to school electrical mains wiring to support
                continuing ICT development. A small number of government schools were pursuing an objective of
                providing computers for all students or all senior students, but in general the rate of acquisition of
                additional computers to increase connectivity has peaked and is now falling.
                Expenditure continues, however, on the ongoing replacement of computers at an age of typically
                three to five years depending on use and jurisdiction policy. The downward trend in computer unit


104
      Application Service Provider
105
      NSW, NT, Qld, SA, WA.



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                              Final May 05, Page   148
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                        Appendix 6 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




           pricing indicates that ongoing expenditure on replacement will remain relatively stable for the
           foreseeable future.

           Local Networks
           In larger jurisdictions, most schools had usable cabling systems which linked workstations clustered
           in computer laboratories and selected other locations to servers and to external networks. However,
           investment will continue in many areas to improve coverage and ensure that all computers can be
           networked, giving them access to school file servers, the Internet and to school sector VPNs (virtual
           private networks) in most jurisdictions.
           At the same time, the ability of wireless LANs to allow more flexible use of classroom space and
           increased participation with computers, especially laptops, is increasingly appreciated and is
           beginning to be exploited.
           Experience with recent e-learning trials and ongoing study of future network requirements indicated
           clearly that to bring online worthwhile amounts of content to facilitate e-learning on a significant
           scale will make very large demands on the capacity and performance of local school networks and
           access networks.

           Access Networks
           Substantial increases in access bandwidth are being delivered through bandwidth-improvement
           programs in most jurisdictions. In some locations, including the outer suburbs of some major cities,
           ISDN or satellite links remain the only options, however, there were substantial projects under way
           around Australia to take advantage of a number of cost-effective broadband and near-broadband
           services including ADSL and VLAN Ethernet to provide primary and secondary schools and TAFE
           colleges with public network or VPN access at speeds from 256 kbit/s to 100 Mbps.

           Virtual Private Networks
           VPNs Networks are being implemented in a number of jurisdictions in order to achieve a range of
           benefits including:
           • efficient, cost-effective centralised provision of management capabilities for virus and spam
             protection, Internet content filtering, Internet download administration and access to commercial
             online services;
           • provision of improved security, including authentication for remote access for staff and students;
           • cost savings from bundling Internet traffic into a single point of access and avoiding the need for
             expensive dedicated point-to-point leased circuits;
           • a unified e-mail environment for the schools sector with reduced costs; and
           • the potential for establishment of portals or repositories to facilitate easy and low-cost access to
             online learning content and other resources.

           Software
           Centralised systems are increasingly used in a VPN context, and may require additional licences at
           schools. Software for online learning is provided both at schools and centrally. Access
           management, anti-virus and anti-spam software are in some cases implemented at schools but are
           increasingly being centralised as VPNs are implemented.

           Internet Services
           Large growth in download volumes is being experienced with increase in access bandwidth. One
           jurisdiction which has upgraded 50% of school sites to broadband access reported that these schools
           now account for 80% of Internet costs.
           Student demand for Internet access is now being actively managed, in some cases by Internet Service
           Providers (ISPs) on behalf of schools and jurisdictions, and in some cases through VPN capabilities
           or solutions specific to the education sector such as myinternet.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                         Final May 05, Page   149
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                           Appendix 6 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




6            Priority Area – Content

            Goals for e-learning in Australia
            Learning In An Online World: The School Action Plan For The Information Economy106 sets out
            goals and a strategic framework for e-learning in Australia. Amongst these goals are the following
            relating to the development and use of digital content:
                  • a viable market will be established for the generation of online curriculum content for
                       Australian school education;
                  • all students will have access to quality digital education materials that support Australian
                       school curricula and that optimise opportunities provided by new technologies for learning;
                  • EdNA Online will support access by educators and students to high quality public domain
                       online resources and services relevant to the Australian curricula; and
                  • schools and schooling systems will provide education services using efficient and effective
                       online business practices.

            Content from the Le@rning Federation
            The purpose of the Le@rning Federation is to:
                • develop a body of nationally-funded curriculum content, suitable for each jurisdiction;
                • develop this content within a framework of open platform communication and management
                    tools that support distributed access and IP rights and assist teachers and students to use,
                    customise and integrate the content; and
                • in the longer term, use the framework and the content to stimulate further contributions to
                    the pool of material, meeting agreed standards.
            The Le@rning Federation aims to provide the best available content in the early twenty-first
            century107. Current priority areas are:
                 • Science
                 • Numeracy and mathematics
                 • Languages other than English
                 • Literacy (Students at risk)
                 • Studies of Australia; and
                 • Innovation, Creativity and Enterprise


7            Overview of Future ICT Requirements

            Connectivity

            ICT Infrastructure in Schools

            Local Networks
            Recent e-learning trials and ongoing study of future network requirements are indicating that to bring
            online worthwhile amounts of content to facilitate e-learning on a significant scale requires not only
            increased bandwidth but the implementation of relatively large integrated software systems which
            make increased demands on the capacity and performance of local school network infrastructure.
            The timing of school network upgrading is primarily being determined by bandwidth improvement
            programs, since the school networks are generally upgraded prior to or at the time of the introduction

106
    EdNA Schools Advisory Group, 2000, Learning in an online world: the school education action plan for the information economy
http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/file12665
107
    Phase Two Plan 2003-2006, The Le@rning Federation, 2003



Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                                                Final May 05, Page   150
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                         Appendix 6 Additional Resourcing Need: ICT in Schools




           of access bandwidth upgrades, and these costs will generally be in phase except where upgrading has
           been carried in advance in some places.

           Centralised ICT Infrastructure and Services
           Where facilities are intended to assist in the management of Internet access, the expenditure is
           tending to precede or accompany the bandwidth improvement investments. However, because of the
           time required to determine requirements and implement systems for online learning in schools, and
           the need for wider involvement of skilled teachers, investment in this element of central systems will
           take place slightly later, so that additional expenditure is required through to at least 2005 to bring
           centralised systems to the level of capability required to meet goals for online learning.

           Software
           A significant part of this element of Connectivity is the investment in software for the delivery and
           management of online learning. The specification, acquisition, implementation and management of
           the software and infrastructure required to successfully upgrade e-learning in schools from a trial
           basis to a production basis is a substantial challenge for all jurisdictions.
           Commercial advantage may be obtained through collaboration on nation-wide systems procurement
           where jurisdictions have similar requirements.

           Internet Services
           Cost increases resulting from rapidly growing volumes have been limited by:
               • filtering and volume management arrangements;
               • the low rates of charging achieved through jurisdiction-wide contracts; and
               • by the fact that most such contracts are based on a fixed price for a notional annual volume.
           Despite the advantageous commercial arrangements currently in place, the rolling over of such
           contracts in due course in the presence of rapidly increasing volumes is likely to result in future cost
           increases, even though Internet usage charges are consistently falling. National collaboration in
           Internet service procurement could also be of significant advantage.




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                          Final May 05, Page   151
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                Appendix 7 National School Resourcing Standard




Appendix 7                  National School Resourcing Standard: Cost calculations
                            - Data sources and formulae

1          NSRS Aggregate Costs

1.1                National Required Expenditure for Government Primary Schooling

Type:                   Aggregate cost
Sample frame:           Programs from primary schools, all state government systems, some non-
                        government schools
Data sources:           ANR, All State jurisdictions, non-government schools
Type of cost data:      Accrual based public expenditure (excl user cost of capital, transport costs)
                        cash based expenditure, project estimate for school generated revenue
Formula:                Sum - Aggregate govt primary accrual based expenditure (base cost +
                        currently funded additional resourcing needs) + project estimate for school
                        generated revenues + aggregate cost for primary level unfunded future
                        additional resourcing needs (student related, apportioned unit cost ICT
                        related), excl user cost of capital, transport costs




1.2                National Required Expenditure for Government Secondary Schooling

Type:                   Aggregate cost
Sample frame:           Programs from secondary schools, State government systems, non-
                        government schools
Data sources:           ANR, All State jurisdictions, non-government schools
Type of cost data:      Accrual based public expenditure (excl user cost of capital, transport costs),
                        cash based expenditure, project estimate for school generated revenues
Formula:                Sum - Aggregate govt secondary accrual based expenditure (base cost +
                        currently funded additional resourcing needs) + project estimate for school
                        generated revenues + aggregate cost for secondary level unfunded future
                        additional resourcing needs (student related, apportioned unit cost ICT
                        related, VET related), excluding user cost of capital, transport costs




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05, Page   152
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                Appendix 7 National School Resourcing Standard




1.3                Total National Required Expenditure for Government Schooling

Type:                   Aggregate cost
Sample frame:           Programs from secondary schools, State government systems, non-
                        government schools
Data sources:           ANR, All State jurisdictions, non-government schools
Type of cost data:      Accrual based public expenditure (excl user cost of capital, transport costs),
                        cash based expenditure
Formula:                Sum (National Required Expenditure for Govt Primary Schooling, National
                        Required Expenditure for Govt Secondary Schooling)



2          NSRS Unit Costs (Government System)

2.1                NSRS Government Primary Student Cost

Type:                   Unit cost
Sample frame:           Programs from primary schools, State government systems, non-government
                        schools
Data sources:           ANR, All State jurisdictions, non-government schools
Type of cost data:      Accrual based public expenditure (excl user cost of capital, transport costs),
                        cash based expenditure
Formula:                National Required Expenditure for Govt Primary Schooling/ number of
                        government system primary students (2002-2003 enrolments)




2.2                NSRS Government Secondary Student Cost

Type:                   Unit cost
Sample frame:           Programs from secondary schools, State government systems, non-
                        government schools
Data sources:           All State jurisdictions, non-government schools
Type of cost data:      Accrual based public expenditure (excl user cost of capital, transport costs),
                        cash based expenditure
Formula:                National Required Expenditure for Govt Secondary Schooling/ number of
                        government system primary students (2002-2003 enrolments)




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05, Page   153
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                                Appendix 7 National School Resourcing Standard




3                  Additional Expenditure Required for Government Schools

3.1      Additional Expenditure Required, Government system, Primary level


Type:                   Aggregate cost
Sample frame:           Programs from primary schools, State government systems, non-government
                        schools
Data sources:           All State jurisdictions, non-government schools
Type of cost data:      Accrual based public expenditure (excl user cost of capital, transport costs),
                        cash based expenditure
Formula:                Sum (primary level unfunded future additional resourcing needs - student
                        related, apportioned ICT related)




3.2      Additional Expenditure Required, Government system, Secondary level


Type:                   Aggregate cost
Sample frame:           Programs from secondary schools, State government systems, non-
                        government schools
Data sources:           All State jurisdictions, non-government schools
Type of cost data:      Accrual based public expenditure (excl user cost of capital, transport costs),
                        cash based expenditure
Formula:                Sum (secondary level unfunded future additional resourcing needs - student
                        related, apportioned ICT related, VET related)




3.3    Total Additional Expenditure Required, Government system, Primary and Secondary
levels


Type:                   Aggregate cost
Sample frame:           Programs from primary schools, State government systems, non-government
                        schools
Data sources:           All State jurisdictions, non-government schools
Type of cost data:      Accrual based public expenditure (excl user cost of capital, transport costs),
                        cash based expenditure
Formula:                Sum (additional expenditure required primary level, aggregate secondary
                        level expenditure required)




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                           Final May 05, Page   154
Resourcing The National Goals for Schooling                       Appendix 8List of Technical Papers and Documents




Appendix 8                  List of Technical Papers and Documents held by SRT
                            Secretariat


1                  Technical Papers for Data Collection - Stage One

Technical Paper 1 - School Effectiveness
Technical Paper 2 - Least Cost Schools
Technical Paper 3 - Non Financial Data Spreadsheet
Technical Paper 4 - Financial Data Spreadsheet
Technical Paper 5 - Financial Data Collection


2                  Terms of Reference for Contractors

Project brief and tender guidelines - Student Related
Project brief and tender guidelines - Information and Communications Technologies
Project brief and tender guidelines - Vocational Education and Training in Schools
Project brief - School Related


3               Contractors’ Reports
Consultel IT&T Pty Ltd (unpublished report to the Schools Resourcing Taskforce, March, 2004) Resourcing
the National Goals for Schooling - Information and Communications Technologies in Schools
Erebus International (unpublished report to the Schools Resourcing Taskforce, 2003) Resourcing the National
Goals for Schooling - Student Related Cost Drivers
The Allen Consulting Group (unpublished report to Schools Resourcing Taskforce, 2003) Resourcing the
National Goals, Stage 2: Curriculum Related Cost Drivers, VET in Schools


4                  Additional Documents

Dowling, A. (unpublished, 2003) Literature Review - England’s New Education Funding System
Dowling, A. (unpublished, 2003) Literature Review - Technical Note on the New Education Funding System
Wright, S. (unpublished, 2003) Literature Review - Charter Schools in the United States
Wright, S. (unpublished, 2003) Literature Review - Canadian Studies and Programs: Additional Education
                               Resourcing Needs, Formulas and Cost Loading Factors
Wright, S. (unpublished, 2003) Literature Review - US Studies and Programs: Additional Resourcing Needs,
                               Formulas and Cost Loading Factors




Schools Resourcing Task Force, MCEETYA                                                    Final May 05, Page   155