Blueprint Funding
Reform
Resource Allocation
Model
1
Blueprint for Reform
In May 2003, Minister Kosky outlined a vision for
education reform, that would result in :
 better outcomes for all students;
 a system that is innovative and creative
 a system that supports every school to improve; and
 makes a real difference to those individuals and groups
of students for whom our schools are currently not
delivering.
2
The Blueprint for Government Schools




The Government's reform agenda is outlined in
the document The Blueprint for Government
Schools.
The Blueprint contains strategies and initiatives
that will bring about improvements in learning
outcomes for students.
The RAM is one of these strategies.
Other Blueprint strategies are aimed at building
leadership capacity, creating a performance and
development culture, improving schools and
improving strategies for student learning.
3
Why the existing model needs to change
Complex – time consuming for principals
and teachers
 Inequitable
 Highlights dollars spent rather than
education outcomes achieved
 Lacks flexibility and discourages
innovation
 Doesn’t effectively target student needs

4
Broad Government Framework

Allocations to government schools to be based on:
−
−

The core amount would be adjusted to reflect:





a core amount, consisting of a per-student price; and
an amount to cover overheads
school characteristics;
student and family/community characteristics; and
levels of schooling
Funding would be linked to the planning and
accountability mechanisms for schools
The costs of school education would be
benchmarked on a rolling basis to determine the
relative costs by levels of schooling
5
The Research
Prof Richard Teese
6
Asked to research
CORE funding
 Rurality
 LOTE
And on the equity side:
 Special Learning Needs
 ESL

Purpose : Can we improve outcomes through
better resource delivery?
7
The Core Components of
the New Model
8
Concept of the Core



The new model comprises Core Funding
allocated to schools via:
− a Per-Student Price
plus:
− a Base Amount.
The majority of funding is to be provided
through the Per-Student Price, with the
Base Amount being a safety net.
9
Stages of Learning Relativities
Student Learning Allocation Relativities
Relativities across the student learning levels excluding base
1.60
1.40
1.23
1.20
1.23
1.32
1.23
1.04
1.00
1.04
1.00
1.32
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Prep
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12
Stages of Learning Relativities
The key factors that determine the different
costs of delivering education are:
Supply side
Demand Side

−
−
−
Teaching allotments
Class sizes
Academic programs
(level of cognitive
demand)
− Specialist teaching
resources
− Organisational
differences
−
−
−
−
−
Relative diversity in
student learning
Relative
behavioural/cultural
diversity of students
High rates of retention
Subject preferences
and program option
demands
High levels of tertiary
aspiration
11
Base Amount



A Base amount ensures that all schools,
regardless of size, have sufficient resources to
operate – a safety net
Extensive research and modelling was
undertaken.
This work comprised:
- analysis of fixed vs variable costs;
- Ensuring ongoing viability of schools; and
- examination of base funding regimes in other
comparable educational jurisdictions.
12
Base Amount




A number of options have been modelled.
In our view - due to economies of scale larger schools receive sufficient funds
through the Per-Student Price.
This is reflected in the preferred approach –
which is a base that tapers to zero at
threshold points.
This approach is consistent with other
comparable jurisdictions.
13
Base Amount – Enrolment Linked Base
Base Amount ($)
Enrolment Linked Base
Enrolment
14
Rurality & Isolation
•
•
•
Current R&I funding is composed of :
- Rural Size Adjustment funding to compensate
for small size
- Location Index funding to compensate for the
higher costs associated with isolation
Substantial urban growth has meant that schools
once identified as rural are now part of major city
areas
Current methods of allocation require review to
improve targeting
15
ARIA Boundaries - Victoria
Major Cities of Australia
Inner Regional Australia
Outer Regional Australia
Remote Australia
16
Languages Other Than English (LOTE)
Currently three different funding formulae in use
•
•
•
Secondary
Enrolments
EFT
1-400
401-800
801-1200
0.4
0.6
1.0
1201+
1.5
Primary - $77.84 per student
Former Stage 1 Schools of the Future still receive a special
LOTE allocation.
17
LOTE (Continued)
•
Current allocations inequitable
- large discrepancies in per student funding
- maximum $1,187 per student
- minimum $27 per student
•
Current thinking is
- to introduce a fairer more equitable model
- allocations to be transparent
- to shift LOTE to student per capita (CORE)
in 2006
18
LOTE (Continued)
Current thinking
• All schools funded on tapered base plus
per student funding
• Different per student rates for primary and
secondary commensurate with stages of
learning relativities
• Modelled separately for 2005
19
Development of Equity
Funding Aspects of the
New Model
20
Equity Funding



Additional funding needed to compensate for
factors that affect a student’s capacity to learn.
Equity funding is presently targeted via the
following categories :
- Special Learning Needs
- English as a Second Language
Research was undertaken to establish:
- the best measure(s) for allocating these
scarce resources;
- how the concentration of disadvantage
relates to school performance
21
Equity Funding – Current SLN Funding

Current SLN (Special Learning Needs)
funding of $33m is targeted using six
measures of disadvantage
−
−
−
−
−
−

Family occupation
Family status
EMA
Koorie
Mobility
Language background
It is distributed across about 68% of schools.
22
Incidence and Distribution of Student Need
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT NEED (% )
60
per cent of all students in govt
schools
50
per cent of schools carrying
four-fifths of all this group
per cent of schools carrying half
of all this group
40
30
20
10
0
LOW SES
EMA
LBOTE
Koorie
ESL
Disabled
23
Uneven Distribution of Student Needs
– Across Regions
ESL
EMA
Family occupation
Disabilities
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
24
Multiple Categories of Need


Some schools deal with multiple categories of
disadvantage, compounding the difficulties
these schools face
A Western Region school has a student
population with
− 19% Mobile
− 64% EMA
− 2.3% Indigenous
− 13% D&I
− 45% ESL
25
Secondary School Effectiveness, by SES
V C E re su lts
A b se n c e s
3 1 .0
1 9 .0
3 0 .0
1 8 .0
2 9 .0
1 7 .0
2 8 .0
2 7 .0
1 6 .0
2 6 .0
1 5 .0
2 5 .0
1 4 .0
2 4 .0
1 3 .0
2 3 .0
2 2 .0
1 2 .0
H ig h S E S
U p p e r m id d le
M id d le
L o w e r m id d le
Low S E S
26
Primary School Effectiveness, by SES
Y ear 5 A IM
A bsences
4.5
15.0
4.4
14.0
4.3
13.0
4.2
12.0
4.1
11.0
4.0
10.0
3.9
3.8
9.0
H igh S E S
U pper m iddle
M iddle
Low er m iddle
Low S E S
27
Variance in Year 5 achievement explained by current
SLN funding components
Element
(proportion in each
school)
Mobility
EMA/YA
Family status
LBOTE
Family occupation
Indigenous
Total
Percentage
contribution
of each
element
Percentage
of variance
explained by
each element
7.9
13.4
1.4
8.8
62.5
6.1
3.2
5.3
0.6
3.5
25.0
2.4
100.0
40.0
Significant
or not
Direction
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
+
-
28
Correlations between Effectiveness Measures and
Equity Density
Mobility
Year 5 achievement
Year 3 achievement
Student attendances
VCE results
Year 10 achievement
Retention
Student attendances
-0.37
-0.39
-0.27
-0.61
-0.51
-0.47
-0.38
EMA
Indigenous Disabilities
ESL
Family
occupation
-0.55
-0.56
-0.38
Primary schools
-0.24
-0.28
-0.24
-0.26
-0.30
-0.18
-0.21
-0.19
-0.15
-0.60
-0.62
-0.40
-0.59
-0.48
-0.36
-0.34
Secondary schools
-0.21
-0.40
-0.25
-0.34
-0.41
-0.26
-0.14
-0.24
-0.27
-0.16
0.09
-0.05
-0.72
-0.49
-0.29
-0.34
29
Models of Year 5 achievement
Model
Element
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Family occupation (Focc) (38.3%)
Mobility (Mob) (15.0%)
EMA/YA (EMA) (31.4%)
Family status (Fstat) (16.0%)
LBOTE (LBOTE) (3.0%)
Indigenous (Indigenous) (5.7%)
Disabilities (Disab) (6.9%)
(Focc)
(Focc)
(Focc)
(Focc)
(Focc)
(Focc)
(Focc)
Adjusted R2
38.3
Correlations
(Mob)
(Mob)
(EMA)
(EMA)
(Fstat)
(Fstat)
(LBOTE)
(LBOTE)
(Indig)
(Indig)
(Disab)
38.8
39.1
38.5
38.9
38.9
0.53
0.82
0.59
0.40
0.27
40.0
30
Equity Funding - Summary
Current equity funding ineffective because:
 SLN Index does not properly measure need
 Funds are spread too thinly
 Funds are insufficient to redress
disadvantage
Research findings
 Best predictor of educational outcomes is
family occupation
 Government targets cannot be achieved
without disadvantage being addressed
31
Equity Funding - Summary
Recommendations:
 SLN Index replaced by single measure of
family socio-economic status (based on
family occupation)
 SLN Funding to be better targeted to the
most disadvantaged schools
32
Koorie Students
Koorie students are concentrated in limited
number of schools.
 Funding is broadly dispersed to 692
schools.
 Not effectively targeted through the SLN
Index

33
Koorie Students - Current Thinking





Separate from SLN
No change in funding level
Target at 10%+ density or threshold number of
students
Distribute on per student basis
Minimum allocation
NB : Subject to current review of Koorie education
34
Student Mobility
Funding broadly dispersed to 970 schools
 Mobile students are concentrated in
specific schools
 Mobility is not always enduring
 Not effectively targeted through the SLN
Index

35
Student Mobility - Current Thinking
Separate from SLN
 No change in funding level
 Target at 10%+ density
 Threshold to be sustained over past 3
years on a rolling basis
 Distribution on late enrolment per capita.
 Minimum allocation

36
ESL funding in Canada
Set requirements
• current English language proficiency assessment
• evidence of an annual instructional plan and a specialist
teacher
• a schedule detailing support to be provided and
documentation of progress
Manitoba
British Columbia
$725 for upto 3 years
$1,100 for upto 5 years
NB : Same amount to both primary and secondary students
37
ESL funding in the US
Florida:
$1000 (.265 loading) for each
ESL student (about $1,000)
Maryland:
$1350 for each student for a
maximum of two years
New Jersey:
$1,102 for each identified student
New York:
Based on a loading of .199 (about
$776 in 2000)
Texas:
Loading of .1 (about $300 in 1998)
38
ESL - Funding in Victoria
A student who either was born in a non-English speaking country or has one
or both parents born in a non-English speaking country is eligible for funding
Current funding weights
Level
Index
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Level Description
All ESL students not included in levels 2 to 4 Years P–6
1<3 years in Australian school Years 2–6
<1 year in Australian school Years P–4
<1 year in Australian school Years 5–6
3<7 years in Australian school Years 7–12
1<3 years in Australian school Years 7–12
<1 year in Australian school Years 7–12
Weighting
2003
Rate
2003
1
1.29
1.61
2.03
2.89
7.18
14.34
$284
$366
$457
$577
$821
$2,039
$4,073
39
ESL - Targeting need
All students are treated the same, irrespective of proficiency
levels. How much do students vary?
L a n g u a g e b a c k g ro u n d
E n g lis h
E S L s tu d e n ts
A fr ic a n
C h in e s e
E a s te r n E u r o p e a n
N o r th e r n E u r o p e a n
S o u th e r n E u r o p e a n
T u r k is h /C e n tr a l A s ia n
M id d le E a s te r n
S o u th E a s t A s ia n
D r a v id ia n /I n d ia n
O c e a n ic
E a s t A s ia n
A ll
< 7 years
< 3 years
5 1 .1
2 8 .0
5 2 .1
4 8 .5
4 5 .0
3 9 .8
3 7 .3
3 7 .7
4 0 .0
4 9 .0
3 2 .6
4 8 .0
2 5 .5
5 3 .3
4 4 .0
5 3 .7
3 7 .8
3 2 .8
3 7 .1
3 3 .4
4 5 .5
2 9 .9
4 5 .7
NA
5 1 .7
3 8 .5
5 2 .1
3 4 .4
3 0 .1
2 5 .4
3 3 .0
3 7 .7
3 8 .5
4 1 .6
40
ESL -Targeting need
How are students distributed across
Victorian secondary schools?
Languages
Chinese
Dravidian/Indian
Eastern European
Middle Eastern
Northern European
South East Asian
East Asian
Turkish/Central Asian
Oceanic
Southern European
African
Low
42.7
10.9
10.7
8.1
6.5
5.4
4.5
4.3
3.2
2.2
1.0
Poverty density (quintile)
Lower
Upper
middle
Middle
middle
High
Total
Percentages within EMA band (column)
22.2
14.7
8.2
7.4
12.8
8.0
9.8
3.5
15.8
14.6
11.6
9.8
9.0
14.7
14.2
22.8
8.0
3.8
4.6
2.2
8.9
13.1
16.6
18.4
3.2
1.3
2.1
0.7
6.8
7.7
12.8
9.3
6.2
8.0
8.7
9.9
3.4
4.1
5.6
2.2
3.2
10.2
5.7
13.8
19.3
8.7
1 2.1
14.2
4.9
12.6
2.4
8.2
7.2
3.3
6.9
41
ESL – Current Thinking
• Reduce the number of classifications from
7 to five
• Target need by aligning funding with
school SFO density
• Reduce the disparity between
primary/secondary funding weightings
• Provide support for five rather than seven
years
42
Descargar

Document