Policy Brief: School Funding Policy Debate for November Election 2014 in Victoria

       Funding is essential for schools to properly manage the schools where formal education is learnt and taught. It is a vehicle to mobilize basic education for social, economic and technological development. Also, funding is needed to tackle the reforms and challenges facing the schools. Therefore, school funding is a primary source for education which plays a vital role in the rapidly changing environment of our daily lifestyle. Education is part of a very crucial engine for the mobility of the today fast-paced advancement. It is also known as a driving-force in building and shaping a nation. For it is the pillar of the holistic growth. With that being mentioned, the education sector in Victoria accounts for over 5% of the State’s GDP and education services are Victoria’s strongest export according to the State of Victoria Economic Review¹. Having acknowledged the importance of its economic output, it is likely impossible for Victoria to continue running the state schools by the state capacity alone without the funding supported by the federal government. In a political sense, school funding is always and everywhere already a political project² because it is the political agenda. This essay, however, will seek to weighing out the policies relating to the school funding from both of the Liberal and Labor parties, media reports and assessment reviews in ways that which party has better policy, including polls collected.

       This November election will be slightly different from the previous years as a funding issue, it is guessed, might have a big say in the final account, not because of the state government’s failure to increase funding, but the controversial budget cuts by the federal Coalition government. For this reason, it is a high time for Victorians to drum up the political anxiety while the election is underway. So, the public debate and argument over who, the Liberal or the ALP parties are more credible to take up the role of education in the state, are heating up.

       Necessarily going back to the pre-election periods in 2013, the Coalition government of Victoria vowed to uphold commitment to school funding sticking to the Gonski reform introduced by the then-Labor government. But, the political storm was soon changed when announced the federal budget reform in May, particularly, for higher education. That it instills the public perception with a wider complex scenario of concern is increasingly growing for the fact that the cuts might bring about a massive negative impact on the future educational opportunities available to all students irrespective of their backgrounds. For a repercussion, the budget cut is heralding a wide array of resistances from the opposition party, other organizations across the country, including university students. Besides, the added media coverage and educational expert comments on the issue is a surplus.

                                                                                    

       Napthine government in Victoria appears to get inclined to the policy guidelines outlined by the Coalition during the pre-election era in 2013³. There are no significant changes afterward,  even at the high drama of post election. In the message recently written by Martin Dixon, minister for education in August, 2014 on the report of Professional Practice and Performance for Improved Learning: School governance reflects the position of the Liberal party for school funding⁴. Mr Martin Dixon contends that his government is focusing on how high each individual student can be improved by mounting the funding. Regardless, the funding is also meant for expanded areas that include the quality of school governance, greater autonomy and other practices. Highly focused on the stimulus of student performance appears to be single-minded while many yearn for holistic progress. 

       In a much-anticipated Victorian budget reply towards budget cutting that the federal government claimed as reform, Daniel Andrew clearly fell short of either delivering strategic platforms or a reliable policy in such a way that people are convinced for a better change, instead his reply is narrowly focused upon upgrading school facilities rather than how the school system needs to be restructured through the funding⁵.  

       Amidst the opposition attack on the budget, the Coalition has frequently boosted an additional school funding in several areas across the state with policies criticizing the failed policy of former Labor government. The Coalition’s policy laid out is to have long-term commitment in the case of restructuring education⁶. As such, they emphasize on schools to have greater autonomy in terms of governance, enhancing school performance and students’ outcomes. On this basis, the Coalition seems to have a clearer clue of what it takes to a nationwide educational reform in an attempt to create the best possible opportunity for all students with less bureaucratic control from Canberra paving ways for self-management and administration. Because an increased funding without the clear strategy and policy would not make sense for all, but a disaster for all. 

       What is certain at this point in time is that Victoria like other states in Australia can not survive, manage themselves without the influx of the funding from the federal government. Given that assumption, Victoria state, under Gonski funding program in 2013, had an agreement signed with the federal government while Labor was in power to seal school funding for the next six years. Nonetheless, Mr Pyne, federal minister for education, dwindled the commitment to only four years. Although Pyne repeatedly reaffirmed to provide a new alternative model of school funding at the end of four year commitment to Gonski funding model, he is still suspected to work on decreasing fundings. Yet, for Victorians, it is relaxed getting reassurance from the state minister, Martin Dixon on this matter, claiming that the Liberal party has negotiated $ 12.2 billion school funding for over the next six years (Preiss Benjamin, 2013)⁷. In this regard, it is good to note that the same party with the same principle will surely have the same kind of policy interest.

       In a recent development, there have been reports suggesting that the Liberal is intensifying to increase funding for which it can be said for election purpose⁸. Central to their ideological campaign, “The Better Schools Plan” is a policy branded for the Liberal-led Napthine government in the lead-up to November election. Technically speaking, Liberal has superiority in strategy than by Labor because the Labor’s policy is less convincing. In a media release from state education minister, the Napthine government is building a better education system, with a record of 9.2 billion for school education in 2014-15, 1 billion up more than in Labor’s last budget¹⁰.

       However, one of the most viable strategies currently used by Labor in the fight of the Liberal is budget scrapping, a policy by which they draw public attention to some extent. The budget cuts that Labor believes have a knock-on effect on educational programs ranging from Reading recovery to the School Start bonus¹¹. James Merlino, a Shadow minister for education accused of the Napthine government for failing to abide in Labor’s educational reform which means Gonski funding model. School funding is apparently a critical component of the election as is echoed in the campaign of James Merlino pledging further 10 million funding upgrade for Daylesford if won the November election¹².

       In addressing the specific details of what the Labor committed to the funding, the following two standpoints can be summed up as the core strategy of Labor party¹³;

·       Committed to continue to fund government school via the student resource package (base, per capita and disadvantage amounts)

·       Committed to continue to fund government school in accordance with the financial assistance model.

       The advantage that the Labor enjoys is that Labor party has a history of popularity in Victoria.

But in respect of making strong policy over school funding, Labor is somehow weaker as it is suspected that they fail to set out new ideology in challenging the Liberal, but too much credit is given to Gonski model. Even so, Meredith Peace, Victorian branch president of the Australian Education Union, is apparently sided with Labor on the ground of decrying for increased funding in line with the AEU’s assessment¹⁴. The notion is that even if both parties are willing to double up the school funding, the question of how the funding will be spent is far more important to determine voting. That is why Labor policy makers are in need of a much stronger policy structured in order to sway the public, knowing that it is hard to be a winner without it.

     Assessing the policies of both parties, which is thought to have done consultation with stakeholders across the state, the Liberal party is construed to have better policy so far. To be true, school funding, by all accounts so far, is a highly contested issue between the two parties. Though being armed with technical superiority, the latest polls indicate that the Napthine government is facing the daunting task¹⁴. Therefore, it is the Liberal that may lead again in this election. At last not the least, to compete in the globalized education market, there is a massive need for the bipartisan support in the making of educational reform as a whole.

       In conclusion, the November election will be critical to both of the contesting parties as their policies and strategies are displayed as much possible as they could through the electronic media and their official websites. And the recent high drama of political campaigns shows that school funding is highly politicized. The two parties seem to have the same passion in terms of increasing funding, but what matters in the final is always about how much their displayed policy win over the public. Therefore, a party with the ability to organize stronger policy would have merit. Thus, it is a good time for the state to invest in the education and construct the long-term feasible policy for a state education system with a purpose of getting on top of the world in the future.   

Reference :

1.     Morsy Leila, Gulson K; Clarke, Mathew 2013, ‘Democracy, sector-blindness and the Deletigimation of dissent in neoliberal education policy: a response to 34(2) May 2013’, Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, vol. 35, no. 3, pp 444-461.

2.     Review of Higher Education in Regional and City Development 2012, OECD Australia, viewed 27 August 2014, <http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/40139266.pdf>

3.     The Coalition’s Policy for schools 2013, Liberal party, viewed 27 August 2014  <http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/08/29/coalitions-policy-schools-putting-students-first>

4.     Report of Department of Education for Early Childhood Development 2014, ‘Professional Practice and Performance for Improved Learning: School governance’, State Government of Victoria, viewed 28 August 2014, <http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/professionalpractice.pdf>

5.     Daniel Andrew 2014, ‘Victorian Budget Reply’, Labor Party, viewed 28 August 2014 <http://www.danielandrews.com.au/news/2014-victorian-budget-reply>

6.     Dannis Napthine 2014, ‘Andrew tries to take Victorian for mug on School’, Liberal party,  viewed 28 August 2014 <http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/10565-andrews-tries-to-take-victorians-for-mugs-on-schools>

7.     Benjamin Preiss 2014, The Age, ‘State schools set to struggle in 2014 as principals brand additional funding ‘inadequate’’, The Age, viewed 28 August 2014.

<http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-schools-set-to-struggle-in-2014-as-principals-brand-additional-funding-inadequate-20140102-30802.html>

8.     Benjamin Preiss 2013, Sydney Morning Herald, ‘States furious over double backlip on Gonski funding’, Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 28 August 2014, <http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/states-furious-over-double-backflip-on-gonski-funding-20131126-2y881.html>

9.     James Merlino 2014, ‘Napthine’s Budget wont’s fix our schools’, Labor Party, Daniel Andrew, viewed 28 August 2014  <http://www.danielandrews.com.au/media/releases/napthine%E2%80%99s-budget-won%E2%80%99t-fix-our-schools/>

10.Premier of Victoria, Media release, viewed 29 August 2014, <http://www.appa.asn.au/president/Win-for-Victorian-schools.pdf>

11.  Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2014, ALP pledges $ 10m for Daylesford school revamp, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, viewed 29 August 2014, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-16/alp-pledges-10m-for-daylesford-school-revamp/5600098>

12.  Victorian Labor Platform 2014, Policy Paper, Victorian Labor, viewed 29 August 2014, < http://www.viclabor.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Victorian-Labor-Platform-2014.pdf>

13.  The Poll Bludger 2014, Crikey, Viewed 06 September 2014, http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/08/24/newspoll-55-45-to-labor-in-victoria-5/

14.  Meredith Peace 2014, The Sydney Morning Herald ‘ALP must program for success in schools’, Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 03 September 2014, <http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/alp-must-program-for-success-in-schools-20140728-zxm2p.html>

The ideological identification of classical realism in international relations

It seems safe to say that classical realism is ultimately based on human nature assumption with the notion that politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature (Robert Schuett 2010). However, it is likely impossible to fully comprehend the concept of classical realism without having any ideas of what realism is. Realism in the broadest sense is the study of international relations from the starting premises that humans instinctively divide into groups (Adam Quinn 2014) which I view essentially later extended to classical realism. When it comes to classical realism, the very basic idea of what classical realism is that it is a theory principally analyzing power in politics and the survival of the state. It is indeed stemmed from the sort of realism, which is converted into the central pillar of ideology and is defined by Nargis Zahra as a belief in anarchy, security dilemma, self-help, power politics, conflictual nature of human beings and reluctant interest-oriented policies of nation-states with considering state as the primary actor in global politics (Nargis Zahra 2011).

Scholars, who are acknowledged as the prominent architect as well as the advocate of the conception of classical realism in a varying degree, are Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hans J. Morgenthau and E.H. Carr and Reinhold Niebuhr generally arguing that men are excessively self-interested, conceive of human nature and the incorrigible facts about human beings. With that being mentioned about an ideology, an essence to the core classical realism appears to be that it is the drive to power and will to determine the game of power is the universal nature of human beings, besides believing that there are certain things that they can fix.

                                                                                            

Given an explanation about the central ideological paradigm above, power is thought to be a key subject for realists in international politics. Consistent with classical realism’s dogma, it is very clear here in Morgenthau’s Pessimism: Politics as Tragedy that the most powerful instinct that drives men to act is the lust for power in the sphere of politics, because human nature is to seek power, so that is what political leaders do (Konstatinos Kostagiannis 2013). So, it is an assumption argued that this basic ideological norm leads to core principle of classical realist defining the belief that every behavior shaped by any government of the nation-state is just a reflection of human nature which can be interpreted as the decision is not made by the country but leaders who are human agents that makes the decision. For instance, the decision led to going to war in Iraq was not made by the country of the United States, but the president in collaboration with his government leaders, and that decision becomes a policy of which it unprecedentedly justifies the behavior of the United States. Because, the state is abstract, not a living agent that can make a decision. In light of psychological-modeled assessing in regards to this issue, states do not have interests, preferences or beliefs; people do. One may conflate individual policy-makers’ interests with states’, the ones with the notion of the ‘national interest’, yet this is a fundamental impediment to advancing our understanding of international relations because policy makers define what is in the ‘national interest’ from their own perspectives (Yong-Soo Eun 2013). 

However, classical realists also tend to share a certain pessimistic view of humanity and of the prospects for fundamental progress or transformation in the nature of human behavior. One of the reasons the classical realists believe why state behavior is directly correlated to the human nature is well pictured in an explanation made by a prominent classical scholar, Morgenthau that man is a political animal by nature, born to seek power, Morgenthau (1946:168). More than just security, then, this perspective emphasizes that men covet what other men have; and worst still, that they have a desire for power—as an end in itself (Murielle Cozette 2008). Also, Brain Leiter critiqued over Thucydides’ claim that he makes plain, virtue and justice play no role in human affairs which is essentially motivated by selfish concerns—power, fear and wealth. In contrast, another realist scholar, Mersheimer contends that realists believe that state behavior is largely shaped by the material structure of the international system.

Critics, in what Robert Schuett explored in pieces of his research in “classical realism, feud and human nature in international relations, argued that realist human nature assumptions are wrong, embarrassing and causing policies of distrust, promoting paranoia, increasing the probability of international violence, stifling chances for peaceful coexistence (Gilpin Robert 1981). The dark side that clashes with classical realism concerning his view on state behavior is that it provides us with a counter to overly optimistic and overly materialistic approaches to international relations, not a fully fledged theory or analytical framework. On the other hand, it also provides an important corrective to a number of biases within realism, as well as international relations scholarship in general.

Observed as Robert Schuett, classical realism is enjoying a renaissance. Recent scholarship provides an insightful account of its timeless virtues, philosophical depths and continuing relevance in the post-9/11 world (M Williams 2005). Despite its own limitations and scope being regarded as unrealistic and narrow in approach, the study of classical realism helps us to explore the norms of international relations as well as state behaviors in a comparative way. A number of international relations scholars studying classical realism are on the rise rapidly, said Williams. 

To conclude, classical realism is all about the study of power in politics and survival with a clear notion that the state’s behaviors are not determined by the state as it cannot have interests, preferences or beliefs, but by the human agents, leaders, heads of the government and decision makers who defines state’s policy that directly determines as a state’s behavior. Critics of classical ideology, however, also counter-attacked that human nature assumptions are wrong, embarrassing and causing policies of distrust and promoting paranoia. All in all, it is learnt that there is a rise in the study of classical realism related to international relations.

References;

1.     Schuett, Robert 2010, ‘Classical realism, freud and human nature in international relations: history of the human science’, Vol 23, No. 2, pp 21-46.

2.     Quinn, Adam 2014, ‘Does the flaw lies within us? Classical realism and unrealistic policy’, global society, Vol 28, no. 2, pp 241-265.

3.     Zahra, Nargis, ‘Terrorism, Realism and the State: Pakistan Horizon’, January 2011, Vol 64, issue 1, pp 1- 61.

4.     Kostagiannis, Konstantinos 2013, ‘Hans Morgenthau and the Tragedy of Nation-State’, The International History Review, Vol 36, No.3, pp. 513-529.

5.     Eun, Yong-Soo 2013, ‘The power of human beliefs over state’s behavior in world politics; An in-depth and comparative case study’, International Political Science Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 372-391.

6.     Cozette, Murielle 2008, ‘What lies ahead: Classical Realism on the future of international relations’, International studies Review, Vol.10, pp 667-679. 

7.     Kirshner, Jonathan 2012, ‘The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol 18, No.1, pp. 53-75.   

8.     Troy, Jodok 2014, ‘Religion and the Realist Tradition; From Political Theology to International Relations theory and back’, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 171-172.

9.     Williams, M 2005, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of international relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.