A fairer deal for every Australian school

Proposals for a school funding formula overhaul are moving through state legislatures and education ministries, forcing a debate about how base funding and targeted support should be balanced. The Commonwealth sets the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS); state and territory governments supplement it and decide how to prioritise staffing, buildings, transport and student support. Changing the base amount or the weights attached to disadvantage could affect class sizes, specialist access and whether small schools remain open.

Equal funding sounds fair, but schools do not begin with equal costs. A student with disability may need additional aide time, while a child learning English needs language support and a remote school faces higher transport and staffing costs. The reform therefore needs transparent measures of need, reliable data and enough certainty for governments to plan beyond one budget cycle. The debate in Canberra will be judged by what it means for families in Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and small rural towns.

What the proposed overhaul would change

The SRS combines a base amount per student with loadings for low socioeconomic status, disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, English as an additional language, remoteness and school size. A review could alter the base, the weights, minimum school allocations or how enrolment growth and decline are treated. It must also keep recurrent funding for teachers and aides separate from capital funding for buildings, because a school with a healthy operating budget can still lack an accessible bathroom, safe classroom or reliable internet.

State and territory parliaments can legislate state contributions, staffing policies, building programs and enrolment rules, but they cannot unilaterally replace the federal SRS. A credible overhaul would need a common framework agreed by education ministers, with states determining local top-ups and services. That matters because a minimum guaranteed to a tiny school in one state may not answer the pressure of rapid population growth in another.

Equity starts with how needs are measured

Targeted money works best when it follows verified need without making schools chase labels. The formula should use current enrolment and census data, while allowing schools to explain unusual circumstances such as a sudden refugee arrival, an isolated community or a disability plan that does not fit a neat band. Weights should be reviewed regularly because wages, transport routes and local economies change faster than a formula written several years ago.

The additional loading for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students is important, but program design matters just as much. Culturally responsive teaching, community partnerships and attendance support cannot be delivered through a budget line alone. Schools in the Northern Territory and remote Queensland need enough to cover specialist services and teacher retention, not merely enrolment numbers. For families in remote NSW, the cost of a bus to a sports fixture can shape participation; school travel reporting can keep those practical barriers in view.

States face different local pressures

State conditions vary widely. Western Sydney and Melbourne’s outer suburbs are absorbing enrolment growth, putting pressure on temporary classrooms, transport routes and teacher supply. At the same time, many small NSW country schools face falling rolls, making a reliable minimum important where the local school is the only practical option. Government systems also compete for staff with Catholic and independent schools, so a well-funded formula can still lose teachers where housing costs and a thin casual-teacher pool make recruitment harder.

Queensland’s regional and coastal schools face cyclone resilience, long distances and limited access to some services. South Australia and Tasmania must balance metropolitan growth with small schools and remote communities, while the Northern Territory carries some of the highest costs of distance. These differences are not footnotes; they show why national rules need predictable minimums and room for regional adjustments.

Local knowledge should guide implementation. In north Queensland, a new classroom must meet flood and cyclone standards before additional desks matter. A small Tasmanian school may need a shared specialist rather than a full-time service on every site. In Darwin, wet-season disruption and teacher accommodation affect the real cost of staying open. State legislatures should hear from school councils, families, teachers and local Aboriginal organisations before rewriting the rules.

What evidence should guide the rewrite

An overhaul should be judged by results, not the size of the announcement. Governments should publish the modelling: which schools gain or lose, how much is recurrent, what minimum allocations protect and how transition would be phased. A school-level calculator would let a parent in Geelong or a principal in Katherine test the assumptions. It would also show whether a policy closes a resource gap or merely moves dollars between regions.

Evaluation should track attendance, literacy, numeracy, teacher vacancies, wellbeing and access to specialists, with results separated by disadvantage and location. Independent reviews can test political claims, while annual public reporting allows weights to change when costs do. For a broader evidence base, readers can consult the education funding research alongside official budgets and enrolment data.

Recommendations for a fairer funding system

State and territory leaders do not have to choose between a universal base and targeted support. A workable reform can protect each school’s core capacity and direct extra resources to clear needs. These measures would give parents and educators something concrete to assess.

To rebuild the base amount from the verified cost of delivering the core curriculum, the policy must include annual indexation for wages, utilities and insurance. Additionally, administrators should retain loadings for disability, low socioeconomic status, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, English as an additional language, remoteness and school size, and then review them publicly.

For small, isolated and single-teacher schools, the framework must set a transparent minimum allocation, with supplements for unavoidable operating costs. Transparency requires the government to publish a school-by-school funding calculator and transition rules, including the separate treatment of staffing and capital.

Furthermore, policymakers should protect funding for transport, boarding, specialist services and accessible infrastructure in regional and remote communities. Finally, the state must commission independent evaluation and publish outcomes in plain English within twelve months of implementation.

The immediate action is to publish the draft formula before the next budget cycle and invite evidence from the people who run and use schools. State education ministers should ask parliamentary committees to hold public hearings, while school councils, parent groups and local Aboriginal organisations submit examples from their communities. Clear modelling, protected minimums and measurable outcomes would give the overhaul a fairer starting point for Australian students.