Public Funding by Voucher System in Australia - Case Study Example

PUBLIC FUNDING BY VOUCHER SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA Student’s name University name Date Public funding by voucher system in Australia The efforts shown in trying to reform the educational system in Australia has seen a continued heated debate over a few years on which kind policy to implement. The debate became more strident after the commissioning of the “Review of Funding for schooling.” (Griffin, D. 2014, p.251). Griffin in his book “Education reform the unwinding of intelligence and creativity”, continues to indicate that debates on public policy concerning education in Australia is mostly based on the relative value of private and public learning institutions, how students perform in tests, and need for and nature of the national curriculum. However, there is no significant difference observed in performance of students benefiting from the voucher program. Among reforms that were proposed for K-12 education includes changes in governance which would boost authority of parents to pick schools thus resulting into a market-like education system, chance to set up charter schools and controversial voucher program, Ladd, H.F.(2002, p.3). Therefore, this essay discusses the use of voucher system in funding public schools in Australia, its workability, and the probability of achieving better outcomes than current or proposed measures. In addition, this essay discusses the evidence of its effectiveness and efficiency for governments to realize policy objectives with respect to education, if any. First and foremost, a voucher system refers to a system of accounting within which a receipt is organized generally with supporting documents attached in support of each or sequence of transactions affecting a particular description which is recorded into a voucher register after approval. Similarly, a voucher system means “a plan and method of procedure for the verification, recording and payment of all items (other than items to be paid from petty cash) which require the disbursement of cash”, Maheshwari, S.N., & Maheshwari, S.K. (2007, p.64). In education perspective, a voucher system is a public funding program in schools where state-funded scholarships are given to students to learn in private schools rather than studying in public schools. The journal of economic perspectives establishes that school voucher programs allow parents to use public funds to afford education not only in public schools but also in private schools, something that brings up a point of controversy, Ladd, H.F.(2002, p.3). Ohio’s EdChoice program is a good illustration on how voucher systems operate. This program provides an approximate list of 300 private schools accepting enrollments for its scholarship plan with estimated 85% Christian allied private schools and several secular, Jewish, and Islamist schools, Feinberg, W., & Lubienski, C. (2008, p.86). Benefiting families cannot be charged at or lower than 200% of the federal poverty level in support of supplemental schooling expenses over the scholarship of $4,250 for kindergarten in the course of 8 grades and $5,000 for 9th to 12th grades. Voucher programs operate through legislative action and thus, produce some degree of debate and controversies although voucher program is not the most controversial. In its operations, the entire voucher program work through governmental action and consequently generate some level of dispute and prospective disagreement about their authenticity, Salamon, L., & Elliott, O. (2002, p.448). Increases in reimbursement over point in time necessitate going back throughout the unrestricted financial plan procedure to put down new limits and budgets every year. To explain how voucher system operates, Gormley (1991) makes it clear that the Voucher program in Australia is organized through a private-public partnership where the private sector injects considerable funds in support of private schooling and boost parental choice. The redistributive nature of this program offers higher government subsidies to neediest schools than richer schools, after it was introduced in 1974. A tutorial voucher initiative gives $700 voucher for tuition and this sum accounted for $20million of government financing. However, there still exist some discrepancies on principle of equity among families. To ensure justice in the process of distribution on this equity principle, the program attempts to give families in laughable schools educational options such as restricting schools from charging extra tuition to poor families in low performing districts, requiring schools among coaching differentials to offer charitable service activities in lieu of payments. Even though this voucher program has worked before in many other countries such the US, Chile and New Zealand, it has similarly experienced criticism questioning its efficacy in carrying out the student funding activity in public schools. This essay provides proof that is converse to claims of its proponents who suggest that a significant common voucher program would not cause huge increase to general student academic output and costly to disadvantaged students. First, school voucher program results into a system of education that biases choices of parents towards the public sector production. Since families have accessibility to schools at K-12 level, which are financed with no tax, they exhibit financial incentives to prefer public schools over private schools. Estimated 12 percent of students are enrolled in private schools nationally, many of which have religious affiliation, Ladd, H.F. (2002, p.3). This bias of parents’ choices towards public schools could however be eliminated through the use of a universal voucher system. Ladd in school vouchers journal explains that in many countries, schools which are privately owned and operated get huge amounts of direct financial aid from the government “(Plank and Sykes, forthcoming)”, with religious schools being excluded. Religion based schools were initially excluded in the Milwaukee program but the program was enlarged in 1995 through the Wisconsin legislature to include these schools. Arguing that separating the state and church in line of basic and secondary education is profitable, then abating this disconnection by extending voucher funding to religious schools could automatically result to high social costs, Ladd, H. (2002. p.4-5). Secondly, voucher program gives room to parents to choose schools but however, chances are limited. Children within each school district normally attend the schools designated in that neighborhood. Therefore, the choice of where the family lives entirely is critical to where the child attends school, Ladd, H. (2002. P.6). Unequal income levels also determine the state in which a child attends school with low income families being restricted to live in districts marked as poor. Thus, their children automatically enroll in those schools. On the other hand, families with sufficient income obtain freedom to relocate to suburban districts in pursuit of quality education for their children. Large cities also contain low income families that could move freely in low-income housing market thus, children can easily choose among schools initially available only to those earning high income. However, this results to the segregation of families due to financial inequalities. Theoretical work done recently indicates that the voucher program reduces residential segregation by income, Ladd, H. (2002, p.7) “(Nechyba, 1999, 2001).” This gain is built on the premise that if families get access to private schools, their residences would less likely be separated by income. Thirdly, children have legal obligation to attend school. It is compulsory to attend school in their youthful age which is a public commitment that is tied to the lives of youngsters and it’s associated with perceptions of huge social benefits above and beyond private benefits to learners themselves, Ladd, H. (2002. p.6). This reason questions the rationale behind ownership of public schools and it is inconsistent with the voucher system. Lastly, influence from peer groups plays a significant role in family choices. Parents tend to behave like the peers of their children matter, Ladd, H. (2002. P.6). Parents make choices to move their children to joining schools which provide an average socioeconomic level or nonminority split of the students is way up than in their original or assigned schools. A large number of parents may not have contact to adequate information to make best decisions to pick amongst alternative schooling options and resources may not be supplied efficiently Carr, M (2009. P.17) “(Stewart et al 2007).” This book continues to explain that likely failures in the market involved in public education has lead to theorizing voucher programs which would result to improved separation and balkanization due to families grouping in schools based on socioeconomic and demographic distinctiveness. Conclusively, even though the voucher program has been suggested by many people particularly critics as a way of improving the public funding process in public schools, an empirical research has to be done and consequently establish clearly the benefits of the voucher program to overcome its criticism. As much as the procedure increases the power of parents in choice making, the research into impacts of voucher system has not yielded ultimate or generalizable findings Cling, J. (2005). This would assist in the avoiding the likely biases that may arise if the voucher program is blindly adopted and implemented without a clear understanding of its impacts both positive and harmful. Consequently, this may escape the judgments from opponents of this very procedure but instead initiate strategies that will boost the education system in Australia and improve individual performance in tests. References Ladd, H.F. (2002), ‘School Vouchers: A Critical View’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(4), pp. 3-24. GRIFFIN, D. (2014). Education reforms the unwinding of intelligence and creativity. (http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=677622.) MAHESHWARI, S. N., & MAHESWARI, S. K. (2007). Financial Accounting. FINANCE INDIA. 21, 656. SALAMON, L. M., & ELLIOTT, O. V. (2002). The tools of government: a guide to the new governance. Oxford, Oxford University Press. GORMLEY, W. T. (1991). Privatization and its alternatives. Madison, Wis, University of Wisconsin Press. CARR, M. (2009). An evaluation of the systemic effects of the Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship Program. Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2009. PATRINOS, H. A., BARRERA OSORIO, F., & GUÁQUETA, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. Washington, D.C., World Bank. (http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=459639.) Read More