Education Funding Policy in Australia and the UK - Essay Example

Education Funding Policy in Australia vs. the UK Name: Course: Date: Introduction Policy involves principles offering guidelines during the decision-making process to ensure realization of rational outcomes. The government operates at the guidance of policies that regulate various sectors such as health, education, transport, and security. They guide routine decisions made by directors of these sectors to ensure the realisation of the government’s short-term and long-term objectives. The education policy comprises of principles that govern the educational sphere and regulate the education systems established in the country (Aston & Shutt, 2010 p.143). Education is a form of learning that involves the transmission of knowledge, values, skills, and beliefs. It occurs in various forms such as early childhood education, higher-level education, and adult education among others. The policy dictates the privatisation of schools, teacher education, learning methods, grading system, and curriculum content among others. The department of education oversees the access to education in a country to ensure a highly educated society and equality of resource allocation. Education Funding Policy in Australia Direct government funding of education of schools in the states began in 1964 in Australia. The only available education incentives used by the government comprised of donations to fund school structures and taxation concessions regarding school fees payment. The first statute focusing on schools funding, States Grants (Science Laboratories and Technical Training) Act 1964, introduced funding of school facilities in both governmental and nongovernmental institutions. In the 1970s, the government authorized recurrent school fees funding for individual students to enable struggling students’ access education. The government began assessing funding needs for various schools and established policies for funds allocation on a need basis in both governmental and nongovernmental schools (Dynarski, 1994 p.37). The Schools Commission established in 1973 ensured the recurrent funding incentives for schools and targeted educational programs. The fundamental legislation process continued its development until 2009 by which the government had a comprehensive funding framework. However, majority of government funds goes to nongovernmental institutions while the governmental schools obtain funds from the state governments (Haroon & Luke, 2011 p.11). The highest expenditure of state governments covers school funding in the respective states. Education Funding Policy in the UK The definition of the education system in the UK began in the 1800s during which the government established a comprehensive school system through increasing the number of state schools. In 1833, the government allocated grants to church schools that emerged as state schools in each parish. The parliament passed Acts 1841-1852 that allowed the government to finance purchase of land for construction of school buildings as well as promoting education for poor students. The 1870s involved the establishment of a legal framework that focused on issuing grants to colleges and the administration of these funds. The Acts of the 1890s and early 1900s introduced issues in the secondary school education system funding. The Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 regulated the issuance of fees and grants for non-UK university students. The Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984 introduced Education Support Grants while the Act passed in 1986 required comprehensive regulation in their use (Barr & Crawford, 2007 p.217). The statutes established in 2000s focused on funding children education through establishment of child funds and increasing the number of children who qualify for these funds as well as the overall welfare of the children. The UK experiences a series of amendments of statutes relating to the educational sector in order to adopt the most appropriate framework (Greenaway & Haynes, 2003 p.160). The UK and Australian educational policies have undergone a series of continuous improvements over the years demonstrating various similarities as well as weaknesses. Historical Background of Education Funding Policy in Australia Higher Education The states and territories take up the responsibility of education in Australia with each state government funding and regulating both public and private schools within its territory (Kemp, 2000 p.15). The education system observes the three-tier model that consists of the primary education, secondary education and tertiary education respectively. The commonwealth began the tertiary education funding shortly after 1941 and categorically began funding of the education system in both public and private sectors in 1960s. By the 1990s, it offered approximately 40% of the education public funds and acquired significant influence in higher education and vocational education (Rodney, 2005 p.60). According to the constitution, the Commonwealth does not possess powers to establish laws relating to education. Section 51 inserted in 1946 allows it to make regulations regarding the benefits of the students and incidental matters. The Higher Education Funding Act 1988 enables the Commonwealth to offer direct financial assistance to universities without using the state channels. The Mills Committee established in 1950 by the Menzies Government reported on the university finances while the Murray Committee of 1956 reported on the situation of the tertiary educational sector. The government later established a permanent body, the Australian Universities Committee to oversee the distribution of recurrent funding offered to universities. The Martin Committee of 1961 analyzed the educational trends to forecast future trends to enable the government make appropriate planning. The committee discovered the undervaluation of education and recommended an increase in funding for specialized courses. This led to the establishment of the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1966 to offer recurrent grants to Colleges of Advanced Education and the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act 1967 to allocate capital grants to the institutions. Higher Education Funding Act 1988 established the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) to facilitate financial assistance to higher learning institutions. In 1974, the state abolished tuition fees making the institutions largely dependent on the commonwealth since institutions receiving grants could not charge fees. In 1996, the higher education board produced a budget statement that aimed at reducing the expenditure spent on grants as well as the revision of the loan repayment policy. In 2000, the establishment of an independent body to oversee the administration financial resources in higher learning institutions and the issuance of public reports further enhanced the development of higher education sector in Australia. Primary School The Australian educational system based its curriculum on the religious teachings in the 1700s where the churches controlled the learning and there was lack of an established financing system. The clergy controlled the educational system in the period until 1814 when the state funded 13 elementary schools. The state government struggled with taking control of the schools within their territory since majority of the schools belonged to the major churches; Anglican, catholic, Methodist and Presbyterian. It began establishing public schools and by 1849, started the public as well as private schools through denominational boards since they offered a comprehensive funding framework. In 1851, the government abolished this system since it strengthened the status quo of the Anglican Church. The government established a policy that made school attendance compulsory for all the children regardless of their denomination or economic status. The Victorian model proposed by the Victorian royal commission in 1872 suggested the distinction between the governmental and nongovernmental schools whereby the public funds only reached the state schools that operated parallel to private schools. The Australian commonwealth government officially began administering funds through the Australian Schools Commission in 1973. These funding system divided schools into poor and rich rather than governmental and nongovernmental schools (Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2011 p.19). Successive government continued this funding system and in the process, increasing funding offered to nongovernmental institutions. By the year 2001, rich nongovernmental schools received 40% funding from the government while poor nongovernmental schools received 100% funding. Historical Background of Education Funding Policy in the UK Higher Education In the early 1960s, the government covered the entire cost of higher education including the tuition fees, maintenance of school facilities, and teaching costs. However, the number of students attending the higher learning institutions was minimal hence a low economic burden to the government. The Robbins Report 1963 led to the upgrade of Colleges of Advanced Technology in an attempt to expand the sector and accommodate more students. Within the period 1963-1982, the real value of funds given to the institution dropped due to the increased number of students while the financial burden of the government increased. In 1990, the government resulted in the drafting of a student loan scheme where the students received 50% grants and 50% loan. The students would repay the loan after attaining employment to enable the government to continue funding the institutions (Dearden, et al 2012 p.99). The government founded the Student Loans Company (SLC) to manage the administration of the loan scheme and monitor its proper implementation. In 1992, the Further Education and Higher Education Act reclassified higher education institution hence increasing the number of students recognized as part of the higher education system while creating bodies to manage the funding of these categorical institutions (Tribe, 1990 p.342). In 1998, the government introduced upfront payment of tuition fees for the first time and required the rich students to cater for their education costs while exempting the poor students. The Higher Education Act of 2004 abolished the upfront payment of tuition fees and replaced it with a deferred fee payment system without any exemptions. The poor students however continued receiving grants to cater for their living expenses. The labor government conducted a review in 2009 to determine the position of the higher education sector hence make adjustments to improve the impacts of the funding framework (Gill, 2010 p.11). Primary Education In 1870, the Elementary Education Act allowed the government to establish schools that would complement the existing charitable and private school system (Noden & West, 2008 p.11). In 1944, the system classified grant schools as direct grammar schools and in 1959, the government increased the funding for capital works in charitable schools. In 1981, the Act passed abolished the fee payment in elementary schools and introduced a free education system. In 1998, foundation schools replaced the existing grant maintained schools (Barr, 2004 p.74). The government legalized the academies in the country in the year 2000 while in the following year; the Education Act required the local authority to obtain proposals for the schools before their establishment. Literature Review Two sources reviewed revealed the aspect of educational subsidies and their role in increasing school attendance as well as in promotion of education. (Rodney, 2005) discussed the conflicting factors in the subsidizing of primary education in Australia. The study addresses the suggestions that most students in Australia join the private system due to the attractive funding systems while the government benefits from this system through savings. It attempts at determining the optimal subsidization level where the subsidies encourage an increase in the number of enrolments while maximizing the savings. The factors affecting this process emerge from the optimization problems encountered in the industry and public policy. The paper uses mathematical formula to demonstrate the changes in savings due to changing subsidy levels. The model assumes linearity of factors and ignores different circumstances that affect the various schools as well as splitting of funds between the federal and state governments. The analysis recognizes the area of savings for public funds emerges incidentally rather than intentionally due to policy. The basis of the analysis is the fundamental economic model of supply and demand that arise in any inevitably no matter the level of regulation on certain factors that techniques in the paper attempt to address. The study suggests that key areas in need of analysis include the profit maximization in retailing where the interaction unit price and quantity emerges, taxation policy that addresses income tax charges and tax incentives (related to Laffer Curve), and the university enrollments addressing the number of students enrolling and the costs involved. Dearden, et al 2005) addresses educational subsidies in the UK and observes that they increased the level of participation in the sector. Absence of these subsidies threatens to increase the number of dropouts in the country. Both countries contend that subsidies lower the education costs hence encourage high rate of enrollment. Australia however has a large margin of students supported by the amount of subsidies provided in comparison to the UK. Loan repayment is an important aspect of higher education funding in both the UK and Australia. Higher education is a key ingredient of development in industrialized nations hence the need to improve policies regarding this sector (Bruce & David, 2006). This study analyses the implementation of the income-contingent loans (ICLs) to determine its effectiveness in loan repayment in both members of organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) and non-members (Chapman & Ryan, 2002 p.29). It recognizes that most nations adopted this system, which requires students to repay their study loans on a deferred basis after completion of their studies. The study seeks to analyse whether the adoption of this policy promotes learning in the countries that adopt it from countries that register success in area. The study investigates this process of adopting other countries’ policies as an issue of global policy transfer while distinguishing the process from policy coordination. The paper analyses the policy transfer framework, the conceptual framework of ICLs, and the implementation of the two. It examines the inter-relationship of policy transfer, policy coordination and globalisation, which sets the stage for nations to interact and exchange policies. Through globalisation, countries interact through trade and exchange of ideas offering a platform to perform benchmarking activities. The paper suggests that policy transfer occurs due to the history of success of a particular policy in a sector of interest. A country adopts a policy that has worked in another country in the sector it intends to improve and use the experience of the initial country in identifying critical areas. Policy coordination involves the cooperation of nations in policy making of certain sectors to relinquish their independence while establishing a block relationship. The countries agree to adopt certain policies to standardize their sectors, facilitate trade, and labour movements between them. This paper focuses on the introduction of ICLs in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and the UK that demonstrates a perfect case of policy transfer. Both the UK and Australia possess a policy framework that directs the administration and repayment of loans offered to students. They utilize the ICLs as a mode of loan repayment to reduce the financial burden of the students. However, the ICLs work better in Australia that has set the pace by adopting the policy and offering a learning experience to the other nations operating under similar conditions, objectives and institutions. Australia has experienced a high level of success in executing repayment policies in comparison to the UK. The UK uses Australia as a benchmarking partner in modification of policies to derive the most efficient repayment policies. (David & Michelle, 2003) outlines the efficiency of the current provisions on the administration of funding in the UK. The study focuses on the role of loans and grants in facilitating the higher education in the nation to test whether they add value. The study visits the area of funding deterioration experienced by the country due to factors such as high student: staff ratio, decline in remuneration, poor infrastructure, and the overall social make up. The paper suggests the need for additional funding to realize the anticipated results in improvement of the educational sector. The financing gap remains high and the taxpayer finds it expensive to finance since public funds have several other uses. Eliminating the gap therefore requires tapping of resources from the private sector to facilitate the funding of the higher education. The study also shows the significance of the income contingent loans that allow repayment of students’ loans after finding employment. University loans enables them obtain the employment that later enables them make repayment hence they indirectly finance their education. The income contingent loans system also works in favor of the institutions since they can quote fee prices at an amount that caters for their objectives of funding needy students as well as staff recruitment. This enables the government to expand participation from members of the low economic status that remains low despite the government incentives to fund their education. The study highlights the use of ICLs as a repayment mode that facilitates financial planning for the students. The ICL system in the UK proves beneficial to individual students and the institutions. The ICL system also works in Australia hence proving the most efficient loan repayment system. The UK system requires the students to begin repayment of their loans as soon as they secure a job. In Australia, the student must complete high education before commencing the repayment process. Reviewed studies also revealed gaps in the funding system in terms of transparency and administration. (Andrew, 2007) analyses the funding system in Australian primary school education systems. The study focuses on the availability of information regarding government expenditure on education funding to the public. It highlights the need to ensure transparency in the administration of over $30 billion spent on school funds in monitoring its calculation, distribution and reporting. The study acknowledges the need for transparency, accountability and comparability through data collection across states to establish a standard national curriculum and enhance comparability (Jan & Rosemary, 2010 p.10). The study points out that the government expenditure in Australia seems low when viewed in isolation but very significant in international perspective. The paper identifies the proportions of funds obtained from various sources and records that the state funding to governmental schools from the largest proportion, followed by commonwealth funding of nongovernmental then governmental schools, and lastly state funding of nongovernmental schools. The UK on the other hand lacks an elaborate funding system in the primary education sector. The UK government spends less on primary education in comparison to Australia. The low amount of funds ensures a higher level of transparency and accountability than observed in Australia. (Lorraine, et al 2012) discusses funding in the higher education sector of UK by illuminating on the results of increased resources in funding due to top-up fees. It also analyses the effects of this move on the overall education of the English and Scottish students undertaking undergraduate courses. According to the study, figures provided on the funds allocation per head fail to paint the actual picture on the funding situation in the country and the European Union (Jaekyung, 2011 p.31). These figures include funds allocated to post graduate students, overseas students, and research funds. The paper therefore focuses on stripping the provided figures to eliminate funds allocated to post graduate students, non-European union students, and research expenditure to obtain accurate figures on funds allocation to undergraduate students. After obtaining the accurate figures, the study then compares the funding gap between England and Scotland. It also allows for the difference in undergraduate degree units covered in these countries since the curriculum differs and funding strategies differ according to the subjects. The study suggests a prevailing historical advantage in Scottish funding per head in comparison to English institutions due to emergence compositional differences. Scotland institutions enroll many undergraduate students in the field of engineering, medicine and other science courses that demand greater funding due to the complexity in the teaching methods. However, in the financial year 2006-07, the top-up fees introduced raised the England funding per head to a level close to that of Scotland and future trends indicate a continued rise in this amount. The Scottish system therefore needs to invest additional resources into the higher education private and public funding to remain at the same level with England. Some studies focus on the funding situation in primary schools compared to other institutions in relation to resource availability. (Noden & West, 2008) focuses on the evidence of primary education funding in the UK by addressing the amount spent per pupil in the nation and changes to this regard over the years. The study makes comparison of the amount spent per pupil in the primary education sector and the in the higher education. The study explores the funding framework established in this sector during various years to track the variations over time. It analyses the local authorities’ financial support towards the primary and higher education to identify the variations. It also examines the variations in funding of these sectors adopted by various OECD countries. Government figures reveal that funding per pupil in primary schools remained relatively constant and a considerably low level between 1992 and 1998, the figures then accelerate after 1998 to the present. Throughout the study period, the spending per pupil in the higher education sector remained significantly higher than in primary schools with primary schools assigning one teacher per class and universities employing different teachers to handle different subjects (Santiago, 2008 p.219). School funding changes in 2003 contributed to the instability in school budgets since it led to the cutting of spending per pupil in some schools. Restoring stability in school funding is a top priority for the government in its attempt to adjust these spending levels to accommodate emerging priorities in the sector. The UK demonstrates a higher level of funding in the higher education that the primary sector. The primary education therefore requires addressing and the inflow of funds should increase. In Australia, primary schools receive substantial funding in both public and private sector. Funding in school laboratories in the higher learning education sector offers an interesting perspective to compare the UK and Australian funding system. (James, 2012) discussed laboratory funding in the UK universities. According to the (James, 2012) the funding system receives insufficient funds to sustain the science learning in the higher education sector. (Maslen & Preiss, 2012) observed the decline in funding for the science laboratories in Australia. They highlight the reduction in funding especially for the research and development sector that faces bureaucratic procedures for application of funds. In both countries, there is an evident decline in funding for the school laboratories. This has a major implication on the performance of the science courses in higher learning institutions. The UK however disseminates more funds into the school laboratories due to the high number of students enrolled for the science courses. Australia has a lower proportion of students taking science courses such as engineering and medicine. Possible Future Direction of the Education Funding Policy Australia The education funding system involves the state and territorial governments in funding the governmental and nongovernmental institutions. Government schools receive funding for 83% of their operations through grants based on targeted programs such as special education programs and students from low socio-economic backgrounds. In 2007, the government spent over $1.2 billion on capital expenditure for the government schools representing 33% of the overall capital expenditure in the schools during the same year. The commonwealth spent $3 billion on government schools allocated through the Average Government Schools Recurrent Cost (AGSRC) measure. To strengthen the funding policy in the country, the government needs to solidify the market-based approach to funding, restructure school system of government and non-government institutions into an integrated system, as well as overlay the current status quo using the funding system. The possible direction of the funding policy would seek to revive the education aspect into the funding system (Department for Education, 2011 p.46). This involves the comprehensive understanding of the established school systems before making funding decisions. The funding system needs to work within the education system and not vice versa to work within the expected scope and complexity of schoolwork. The schools would therefore obtain funding depending on their workload hence the amount of resources allocated to a school depends on its scope of work. The system is likely to adopt a system focused explicitly on education through an ethical and rational basis. Future models would address the current inequalities emerging from the administration of public funds to facilitate healthy competition amongst the institutions (Jim & Lyndsay, 2011 p.46). The funding should only create disparities in resource distribution only at the presence of an educational rationale to promote the educational standard and foster competition while eliminating unfair gaps in achievements. The funding system should then adopt a comprehensive framework of responsibility sharing among the stakeholders such as funding partners, the state, commonwealth, and other authorities (Vickers, 2005 p.62). This would deal with the current dysfunctional aspects of the federal system that may encourage misappropriation of resources especially where it involves several stakeholders. Another aspect in need of consideration for future policymaking is the aspect of aligning both government and non-government institutions in regards to funding through modification of current conditions for public funds allocation. Major focus on quality of the teaching standards demands addressing in order to increase student participation and enhance their learning outcomes. The government seeks to enhance public participation in the educational policies and providing high quality teachers would lead to the attainment of this objective (Wheelahan, 2010 p.121). The teachers would facilitate the understanding of the funding system and its functionality hence fostering the public confidence on the government and its operations. The UK The education policy in the UK continues to experience drastic changes especially in the higher education sector (Lysons, et al 2009 p.11). Evidently, the sector requires additional investment to achieve the expected performance standards but there emerges a challenge in seeking funding due to failure in recent reforms. The reforms demonstrated failure in raising the private investment into the sector, which now becomes a priority for the funding system. The students need to begin contributing for their fee payment to curb the shortage in public funds and ensure smooth running of operations in the institution. The institutions will charge fees according to the categories of courses offered in the school since different courses demand different amounts of funding. The policy should consider increasing the enrollment positions and offer a wider variety of courses for the students. The system would venture into offering the students sufficient advice and information regarding various courses to facilitate informed decision-making on course choices. This would place the students at the heart of the system by encouraging their participation and level of understanding on how the system works. The reason for offering financial assistance to students is to facilitate their studies and make their life manageable. The funding system should therefore consider establishment of a repayment system that favors students instead of discouraging their participation (Wakeling & Hampden-Thompson, 2013 p.132). It should ensure affordability of the repayment process through eliminating penalties imposed on defaulted payments. The system should also ensure that students only make payments after completing their course and acquiring employment. Conclusion The Australian and UK governments invest handsomely in the educational funding that has improved with the subsequent revolution in school funding provisions (Chowdry, et al 2012 p.111). In both countries, the education system began within the religious systems that introduced the aspect of school funding to increase students attendance (Trow, 1974 p.86). However, the systems have undergone a series of transformation since this era and currently provide a comprehensive and reliable framework for the funding of education in the primary and the higher learning sector. Both countries operate a federal system of government through which the funding process occurs with the state governments closely monitoring the funds allocation. Grants appear as a similar mode of funding for both nations predominantly funding the operations of government systems while incorporating loans into the funding arrangements (Barr, 2010 p.53). Formulation of student loans repayment procedures poses a major concern for these nations as they attempt to increase students’ participation while ensuring a sustainable funding system. Despite the fundamental similarities in these countries’ funding policies, major differences emerge in the allocation and administration of funds. Higher learning students in Australia find ease in accessing loans to fund their undergraduate education. This fee loans repayment occurs on the income contingent basis and some possess a certain level of subsidization by the government (Chapman, 2004 p.155). Only students exceeding their maximum loan allowance of $96000 found difficulty in accessing loans. However, England operates a high level of rationing for the available funds through establishing strict conditions for the qualification of students for loans. The government only operates a standard government loans fund with a substantial amount of subsidization. Certain groups of higher education students cannot access funding in England since the system offers priority to first time undergraduates (UUK, 2013 p.181). Consequently, this prioritization exerts considerable pressure on the postgraduate students, part-time and mature students as well non-UK students due to the inaccessibility of public funds. Higher education funding in England requires an up-front payment from the students to reduce the risk of defaulting payments (Johnston & Barr, 2013 p.170). Contrary to the objectives of the funding system, most students avoid participation due to this obstacle since they lack lump sum finances to contribute to this respect. Australia on the other hand has eliminated this barrier to encourage loan applications by poor students. Australia has also invested in the primary education sector through the commonwealth and the state governments that offers a comprehensive funding system for both government and nongovernment schools. The UK government focuses more on the higher and secondary education than the primary education sector. Reference Aston, L., & Shutt, L. (2010). The impact of fees, a review of the evidence. London: University Alliance. Barr, N. (2004). The economics of the welfare state (Fourth Edition ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barr, N. (2010). Paying for higher education: what policies, in what order? London: Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance. Barr, N., & Crawford, I. (2007). Financing higher education: answers from the UK. London: Routledge Browne J. (2010). An Independent Review of Higher Education Funding & Student Finance. Independent Review of Higher Education Funding & Student Finance. Bruce C. and David G. (2006). Learning To Live With Loans? International Policy Transfer And The Funding Of Higher Education. The World Economy journal. Retrieved from https://www.10.1111/J.1467-9701.2006.00822.X Chapman, B. (2004). Government Managing Risk: Income Contingent Loans for Social and Economic Progress. Melbourne: Taylor and Francis. Chapman, B., & Ryan, C. (2002). Income-contingent financing of student charges for higher education: assessing the Australian innovation. Canberra: Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University. Chowdry, H., Dearden, L., Goodman, A., & Wenchao, J. (2012). The Distributional Impact of the 2012-13 Higher Education Funding Reforms. Fiscal Studies, 211-236. Claire D. and Lorraine S. (2011). Examining Primary and Secondary School Canteens and Their Place Within The School System: A South Australian Case. Australian Journal. Pages 739–749. Retrieved From Http://Her.Oxfordjournals.Org/ Dearden L. and Goodman A. and Wyness G. (2012). Higher Education Finance In The Uk. Journal Of Applied Public Economics. Pp. 73–105. Retrieved from Http://Www.Hefce.Ac.Uk/Pubs/Hefce/2002/02_15.Htm Dearden, L., Emmerson, C., Frayne, C., and Meghir, C. (2005). Conditional Cash Transfers and School Dropout Rates. Working Paper W05/11. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies. http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=3376. Department For Education (2011), A Consultation On School Funding Reform: Proposals For A Fairer System. Retrieved from Http://Www.Education.Gov.Uk/Consultations/Downloadabledocs/July%2011%20consuLtation%20on%20school%20funding%20reform%20final.Pdf Dynarski, S. (1994). Who Defaults On Student Loans: Findings From The National Post-Secondary Student Aid Study. Economics of Education Review, 55-68. Gill W. (2010). Policy Changes in Uk Higher Education Funding, 1963-2009. Journal Of Higher Education.10-15. Retrieved from http://Www.Timeshighereducation.Co.Uk/Story.Asp?Storycode=92887&Sectioncode=26 Greenaway D. And Haynes M. (2003).Funding Higher Education in the Uk: The Role Of Fees And Loans. The Economic Journal. 113,150–166. Haroon C. and Luke S. (2011). Australia’s School Funding System: School Funding Reform: An Empirical Analysis Of Options For A National Funding Formula. Retrieved from Http://Www.Education.Gov.Uk/Consultations/Downloadabledocs/School%20funding%20reform%20consultation%20final.Pdf Institute for Fiscal Studies. (2011). The public expenditure and distributional implications of reforming student loans and grants. London: IFS. Jaekyung L. A. (2011). Educational Equity and Adequacy for Disadvantaged: Toward National Mathematics Proficiency Standard .The Journal Of Educational Research. Retrieved from Http://Www.Tandfonline.Com/Loi/Vjer20 James P., (2013). University Labs: Waste Not, Want Not. The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2015 www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/may/01/university-science-laboratories-efficiency-funding Jan G. and Rosemary C. (2010). Funding And Secondary School Choice In Australia: A Historical Consideration. Department Of Education, Western Australia. 1-15 Jenny M., Lewis A, Juan I. ,Baeza B, and Damon A. (2008). Partnerships in Primary Care in Australia: Network Structure, Dynamics and Sustainability. Social Science & Medicine Journal 67 280–291 Jim M. And Lyndsay C. (2011). New Directions in Schools Funding a Proposed Model the University Of Sydney. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 35(1)110-121. Johnston, A., & Barr, N. (2013). Student loan reform, interest subsidies and costly technicalities: lessons from the UK experience. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,167-78. Kemp, D., (2000). Building Up Government Schools. Journal of the Australian College of Education, 26(2), 13-17. Lysons A., Hatherly D. And Mitchell D (2009). A. Higher Education. JSTOR. Vol. 36, (1) Pp. 1-19. Retrieved from Http://Www.Jstor.Org/Stable/3448248 Maslen G., Preiss B.(2012). Lab Alert Over Money Freeze. The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2015 www.m.smh.com.au/nationa/education/lab-alert-over-money-freeze-20120924-26h5l.html Noden, P. And West, A. (2008). The Funding Of English Primary Education. Cambridge: University Of Cambridge Faculty Of Education. Www.Primaryreview.Org.Uk Rodney N. (2005). An Application Of Quadratic Functions To Australian Government Policy On Funding Schools'. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal. 58-63. Retrieved from https://www.nillseneuow.eou.au Santiago, P. E. (2008). Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, Volume 1, Special Features: funding, governance, quality. Paris: OECD. Tribe K. (1990). The Accumulation Of Cultural Capital: The Funding Of Uk Higher Education In The Twentieth Century. University Of Keele. Trow, M. (1974). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Policies for Higher Education, OECD (Paris), 51-101. UUK. (2013). The funding challenges for universities. London: Universities UK. Vickers, M. (2005). In The Common Good: The Need for a New Approach to Funding Australia’s Schools, Australian Journal Of Education 49 (3), 264-277 Wakeling, P. and Hampden-Thompson, P. (2013). Transition to higher degrees across the UK: an analysis of national, institutional and individual differences, Higher Education Academy, UK Wheelahan, L. (2010). A Bernsteinian analysis of the 3rd wave of higher education expansion. University of Melbourne, Australia: 6th International Basil Bernstein Symposium. Read More