2013

Reworking Neoliberalism:

THE GONSKI REVIEW, EDUCATION POLICY AND SOCIAL

EQUITY IN AUSTRALIA

SAM HAWKINS – 309231159

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours

Department of Sociology and Social Policy

The University of Sydney, 2013

i | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, David Bray, for his help

with structure and editing throughout the whole year. I truly doubt I would have been

done in time without your assistance. Secondly, I would like to thank the Honours staff,

Jennifer Wilkinson and Mike Michael for providing a helpful and engaging

environment to develop our work. I would also like give special thanks to Jennifer for

the time she personally gave up to aid us. Your help over the final weekend kept me

from truly panicking. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family for all the

support and patience they have provided me throughout the year. Your help and

understanding during times when I was second guessing myself made all the difference

in the world.

ii | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Abstract

In 2011, the Gonski Review argued that all Australian governments had failed to

provide equitable educational opportunities to the nation’s students. In highlighting the

need for Australian education policy reform the Review appears to oppose the

neoliberal-influenced Liberal Party agenda that had fostered these problems. However,

in August 2013, Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, committed to implementing the

Review’s reforms should they win office. This therefore raises questions about why

these recommendations would appeal to the Coalition’s political philosophies. This

thesis explains this anomaly using a discourse analysis of the presence of key neoliberal

principles within the Review. The thesis concludes that through the appropriation and

redirection of neoliberal principles, the Gonski Review is able to appeal to the

sensibilities of both the detractors and exponents of neoliberal philosophy. Therefore,

because of the decidedly un-neoliberal nature of its recommendations, the bipartisan

political acceptance this method engenders could also serve to undermine the broader

dominance of neoliberal political governance.

iii | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Contents

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ ii

Contents ...................................................................................................................................... iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations .....................................................................................................iv

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 5

Towards a genealogy of The Gonski Review ............................................................................. 8

Theoretical Context ................................................................................................................... 8

Practical Context ..................................................................................................................... 26

Contemporary Political Context .......................................................................................... 27

Historical Political Context ................................................................................................. 34

The Gonski Review: critiquing neoliberalism from within .................................................... 44

The Gonski Review’s neoliberal foundations ......................................................................... 46

The Gonski Review’s undermining of neoliberal practice ...................................................... 55

The Gonski Review’s adaptation of neoliberal principles ....................................................... 60

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 70

References .................................................................................................................................. 73

iv | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AIME Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience

BER Building the Education Revolution

CCD Census Collection Districts

CDA Critical Discourse Analysis

CSC Commonwealth Schools Commission

DA Discourse Analysis

DEET Department of Employment, Education and Training

DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

EBA Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment

ERI Economic Resources Index

Gonski Review 2011 Review of Funding for Schooling

GFC Global Financial Crisis

LNCP The Liberal and National Country Parties

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

SES Socio-Economic Status

1 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Introduction

In April 2010, largely in response to nationally declining academic

performances and the failure of the Rudd Government’s Building the Education

Revolution [BER] scheme to slow the decline, the Gillard Labor Government

commissioned a panel, led by businessman David Gonski, to review the country’s

current funding model for education, and establish a series of policy recommendations

for reform. But while the intentions of both the Rudd and Gillard governments were to

address visible deficiencies in Australia’s education system; problems which the

previous Howard Government had fostered, if not produced (Cobbold, 2007), the

conclusions they reached were quite different.

The BER scheme advocated public investment primarily in infrastructure – such

as technological modernisation and architectural expansion – in order to ensure the

capacity of Australia’ education system to meet the demands of the future. An initiative

that, as will be discussed further on, has been utilised multiple times in Australian

education policy. Conversely, the final report of the 2011 Review of Funding for

Schooling, now commonly referred to as the Gonski Review, suggests that the problems

of education funding in Australia are more a question of inequality than simply the

ability of schools to adapt to future demands. The Review brings to light the inherent

inequity of opportunity and outcomes the present funding model has produced, and

makes recommendations for the veritable reconstruction of Australia’s education

funding arrangements. Key recommendations include a significant increase in public

investment, and a model for restructuring financial arrangements to address problems of

distributional inequality, as well as the reorganisation of the sources of public funding

2 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

to ensure equitable responsibility over all levels of government (DEEWR, 2011, pp.

164-183 & 211-212).

One way to interpret this proposed radical departure from the education policies

of the Howard Government is to see it as an undermining of neoliberalism. In this light

the Gonski Review’s proposed reforms could be linked to the implementation of the

carbon and mining taxes as part of wider Gillard Government strategy to reverse the

prevailing neoliberal political climate. Yet, despite the fact that the Review’s

recommendations stand in general contrast to the neoliberal influenced social and fiscal

conservatism promoted by the new Liberal Government (Millane, 2013), in August

2013, then opposition leader, Tony Abbott pledged to honour the Review’s proposals

should they win office (Griffiths, 2013).

This general lack of opposition to the Review by the very political agenda it

serves to challenge raises questions about specifically why the Gonski Review has been

able to engender such acceptance, if not support, when many of Gillard’s other policy

initiatives were met with such staunch resistance. One simple explanation for this

apparent anomaly is that new taxes are easier to demonise than new spending on

education. However, there is another explanation as to why the Gonski Review has

achieved bipartisan support; it makes the case for educational reform through co-opting

and realigning neoliberal discourse rather than through directly challenging neoliberal

principles.

The work of Michel Feher allows us to understand how such a strategy can

work. Feher argues that through the appropriation of the concepts and discourse of the

philosophy one wishes to challenge one is able to appeal to the sensibilities and values

of both the supporters and detractors of that philosophy, and thus engender bilateral

3 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

socio-political support (Feher, 2009). Building on the work of Feher, this thesis

contends that in putting forward an agenda of reform the Gonski Review has

appropriated specific values and principles which allow it to also notionally align with

key rationalities of neoliberalism, and thereby broaden its appeal. In order to

demonstrate how this works, this thesis will undertake a detailed analysis of the

discursive strategies utilised in the Review in relation to the mainstream discourses and

rationalities of neoliberalism.

The first part of this analysis is to ground the Gonski Review within the wider

contexts of global and Australian neoliberalism. In order to achieve this, the socio-

political developments that have informed the funding arrangements of Australia’s

contemporary education system, will be considered in relation to the theoretical

understanding of the principles and practice of neoliberal governance. This will be done

by drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1973; 1998), and Michel Foucault (2003;

2007; 2008), among others, to establish links between the genealogy of the current

arrangements in Australian education funding and the discursive underpinnings of

neoliberal practice.

Once the context of neoliberal influence has been established, this thesis will

conduct a critical discourse analysis [CDA] of the Gonski Review itself, in order to

illustrate its strategic deployment of neoliberal discourse. Utilising the concepts outlined

in the genealogy, the discussion will first show how the inequality and declining

performance the Review holds as being indicative of systemic failures in Australia’s

education system, can be explained through an interpretation of this neoliberal context.

This will also demonstrate how the promotion of strategies that aim to undermine the

4 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

key rationales of neoliberal practice in the Review’s recommendations thereby stand as

a challenge to the wider dominance of neoliberal philosophy.

But Feher argues that any challenge to neoliberalism would be more successful

through the incorporation of neoliberal notions and values. Therefore, this thesis will

ultimately establish just how the Gonski Review appropriates a number of decidedly

neoliberal concepts to both justify the need for, and rationalise the specific details of

policies that would otherwise stand in direct conflict with traditional implementation of

neoliberal philosophies.

In this way, this thesis seeks to explain Abbott’s endorsement of the Gonski

Review as a direct outcome of its appropriation of neoliberal discourse. Therefore, while

the Review’s recommendations are clearly significant for Australia’s education system,

they also speak to a larger potential for the subversion of neoliberal governance within

society more broadly. Furthermore, this strategic redeployment of political values offers

a means to ensure that social change can be more effectively and efficiently achieved in

the future.

5 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Methodology

Despite the diverse range of discourse analysis [DA] methods available critical

discourse analysis [CDA], developed by Norman Fairclough (1989), is perhaps the most

appropriate method for examining the presence of neoliberal philosophy within the

Gonski Review. From the perspective of CDA language is the primary site for both the

expression of political ideologies, and for the distribution of them throughout a

population. Thus, for exponents of this technique the association between discourse and

power, in the Foucauldian sense of knowledge construction (Foucault, 1980), is

particularly relevant to any critique of socio-political interaction.

In this way, despite the acknowledgement of the function of discourse on a

micro-level, CDA is actually more concerned with the social context within which

discourse is produced and perceived, as this allows for the examination of the means by

which power relations are enacted within society. Therefore, CDA seeks to understand

the broader societal currents that inform and establish the ideologies being expressed

within a text (Fairclough, 1995). However, as these links are often rather abstract, CDA

fundamentally relies upon inferential philosophical associations on the part of the

researcher, as opposed to the more structured analysis, and coded patterns of other DA

methods.

Furthermore, while most DA is concerned with the manner in which

interpersonal communication is able to shape social meanings and processes, CDA

systematically relates communications to structural relationships of the broader socio-

political context, in order to establish causal associations between discursive practice

and political philosophy (Fairclough, 1995). Consequently, in contrast to other DA

techniques, CDA is primarily concerned with constructed text rather than face-to-face

6 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

communication (Batstone, 1995, pp. 198-199). When considered in respect to its

epistemological focus on societal power relations, this focus upon constructed text

denotes that CDA is perfectly suited to the critique of political discourse as an

ideological vehicle; the primary focus of this examination of the Gonski Review.

CDA is also particularly useful for the analysis of multifaceted concepts, such as

Feher’s proposal, as the emphasis placed upon the inferential associations of the

researcher allows for the utilisation of numerous disparate techniques in the collection

of discursive data, as well as flexibility in their application (Fairclough, 1989).

However, this lack of a distinct formal method means that the researcher must also

determine an appropriate means to establish and validate the relations of power they

will relate to the text. But while this is an important consideration, it is one that seems

aided by the associations between CDA’s concern with power and the importance

placed upon the function of societal power relations within the work of Foucault (1993).

With this in mind, it seems appropriate to incorporate another aspect of Foucauldian

analysis to supplement the shortcomings of CDA’s flexibility. One Foucault asserts

provides the most accurate and relevant understanding of the complex relations of

power that serve to contextualise a subject within contemporary perceptions (1993, p.

203); namely, genealogical analysis.

Genealogical analysis, as Foucault describes it, draws on the work of Nietzsche

who proposed a critique of contemporary moralities through the supposition that they

develop through the complex interaction between historical power relations (Foucault,

1977). Foucault expanded upon these ideas, contending that it is not simply the

examination of morality that would benefit from such an investigation, but that the

constitution and function of the knowledge, discourses, and even social domains of any

7 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

subject can be better illuminated through an understanding of the influence of societal

and philosophical power relations throughout history (Foucault, 1977, p. 139). As such,

this method serves as an ideal counterpoint to CDA which also seeks to examine the

association between discursive practice and power relations in contemporary society.

In his description of the process of genealogical analysis Foucault distinguishes

between two separate approaches he conceives as being essentially complimentary

methods of proceeding in sociological inquiry. Firstly, Foucault states one should

explore the ‘modern theoretical constructions that were concerned with the subject in

general’ (1993, p. 202). This is an aspect of sociological inquiry that is practically

inherent, as for academic research to be valid one must first ground their work within a

context of theory that serves to inform the conceptual understanding they have adopted

regarding their subject. However, Foucault asserts that genealogical inquiry requires one

to not simply grasp the theoretical understanding of the subject, but to also explore how

the philosophies and processes detailed in the theory relate to the practical progress of

that subject throughout history. As this approach allows for greater insight into the

power relations and knowledge structures which have influenced the development of its

contemporary function and social perception (Foucault, 1993, p. 203).

8 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Towards a genealogy of The Gonski Review

The first section of this genealogy will focus on the theoretical framework of the

Gonski Review; examining the philosophical and academic understanding of the

Review’s intentions and recommendations, and specifically the neoliberal context

within which they are grounded. This genealogy will then go on to relate these concepts

to Australia’s contemporary political history in regards to education, to establish just

how neoliberal influence has directly shaped the context of the Review.

But Foucault asserts that through an analysis of the history of a subject one can

illuminate the complex relations of power that constitute the production and perception

of that subject, and gain insight into the implications of a condition perhaps otherwise

ignored (1993, p. 203). In other words, to further our understanding of the intentions of

the Review, as well as the significance and unconventionality of both the style and

substance of its recommendations, it is imperative to understand the historical

emergence of Australian education policy in regard to funding arrangements. The final

section of this genealogy will thus examine changes to education funding policy in

Australia, as a means of more accurately framing the Gonski Review and its

recommendation within their socio-political context.

Theoretical Context

Despite the political and social attention the Gonski Review has received since

its publication in December 2011 there has been limited academic analysis of the

Review itself in that time. Instead, much of the commentary surrounding the Review

has come from the media; often simply reciting the same style of discursive framing

politicians, and indeed the Review itself, utilise to position their arguments regarding

9 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

education reform within specific conceptual agendas. As a result, it is not possible to

provide a description or critique of the academic literature surrounding the conceptual

intentions or future implementations of the recommendations made in the Gonski

Review.

There is, however, much literature available regarding the development and

impacts of the neoliberal-influenced social and political environment within which, as

will be discussed in the next section, the structural problems the Review seeks to

address have been produced and fostered. Therefore, rather than attempting to provide

any form of analytical exploration of the implementation of the recommendations made

in the Review, it seems appropriate for this examination to instead seek to analyse the

theoretical and practical underpinnings of these proposals.

In order to ground our understanding of these aspects of the Gonski Review we

must examine the literature dealing with neoliberal influence within contemporary

education. Prior to addressing this more specific issue, however, it is crucial to outline

precisely what constitutes neoliberal philosophy, and discuss the various critiques and

criticisms of neoliberal principles and governance that have been made within the larger

theoretical milieu.

Neoliberalism, as it is contemporarily understood, ultimately signifies a

reassertion of the dogma of traditional liberalism regarding the socially and

economically enriching powers of the market economy. The term neoliberalism,

however, was first coined in 1938 by the German liberal scholar Alexander Rüstow to

describe a system of economic governance involving ‘the priority of the price

mechanism, the free enterprise, the system of competition and a strong but impartial

state’ (Mirowski & Plehwe, 2009, pp. 13-14). This was intended as an evolution, or

10 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

theoretical revision, of classical liberalist ideals in response to the perceived failures of

such laissez faire economic practices that had contributed to the financial downturn and

global depression of the 1930s.

As such, it was conceived as a hypothetical “Third Way” between unconstrained

capitalism and restrictive governmental regulation; hence the meaning of a ‘new

liberalism’ (Mirowski & Plehwe, 2009, pp. 14-15). This initial conception of

neoliberalism sought to address the problems of liberalist economic interactions and

allow for the role of government intervention as a regulatory rather than restrictive

influence. However, the formation of the Mont Pèlerin Society by Friedrich von Hayek

in 1947 served to reconceptualise this aim towards something more akin to traditional

liberalism than Rüstow and his colleagues had envisaged.

This divergence occurred largely because while Rüstow had advocated state

intervention to amend undesirable market structures and practices, von Hayek and his

colleagues – most notable of which was influential American economist Milton

Friedman – insisted that the only appropriate role of the state within economic

interaction was the removal of structural barriers to market entry (Hartwich, 2009, pp.

18-19). However, the importance of this distinction between the two philosophies

became less relevant throughout the post-war period when Keynesian welfare oriented

strategies of government intervention became dominant. But when Friedman accurately

predicted the shift towards economic ‘stagflation’ such policies would produce, he

served to undermine the legitimacy of Rüstow’s claims towards the necessity of state

regulation. As such, it was the Mont Pèlerin style of neoliberal philosophy that garnered

political and social support throughout the 1970s (Krugman, 1995, p. 43).

11 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Friedman declared that neoliberal function relies on the ‘elementary proposition

that both parties to an economic transaction benefit from it’. Consequently any

restriction on the freedom of trade would limit those benefits by denying individuals the

opportunity to improve their own position (1962, p. 55). As such, this conception of

neoliberalism is primarily concerned with the promotion of market principles as both a

stabilising and progressive economic and social function. Theoretically, only trade that

produces such benefits would be able to prosper in a truly neoliberal environment as

both parties will seek to maximise their own benefit – utility for the consumer and

profits for the producer. This in turn encourages a competitive market and the

consequential innovation of goods and services to meet such utilitarian demands.

Adherence to such free market principles therefore serves to promote the reduction in

government intervention through the deregulation and privatisation of social services in

the interest of profit maximisation, and to therefore further stimulate such market

interaction for the benefit of the state.

While this privatisation of industry and services, and reduction in government

intervention is designed to encourage economic optimisation, it also has the effect of

encouraging individual responsibility, both economically and socially, for one’s own

well-being. This is justified under the pretext of freedom of choice and personal

autonomy, but consequently serves to promote reductions in social expenditure – which

thereby reduce the social safety-net – to encourage individual responsibility for personal

well-being (Harvey, 2005; Hartwich 2009). But while these elements of neoliberal

philosophy were largely only theoretical before the 1980’s, Friedman’s appointment as

economic advisor to the Reagan Administration in 1981, signalled the increasingly

widespread influence of these principles throughout western political systems – from

12 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Thatcher in the UK, to Hawke and Keating in Australia. Furthermore, the subsequent

economic growth and prosperity that followed throughout the western world reinforced

the political and social acceptance of these philosophies, and ensured they were further

developed and practically applied the world over throughout the subsequent three

decades.

The dissemination of neoliberal philosophy from within economic theory to the

broader social environment, instigated by the political influence of Friedman’s notions

of economic optimisation, is specifically the subject of Pierre Bourdieu’s (1998)

examination of the development of the neoliberal state. But Friedman’s notion of

neoliberal market philosophy was framed as promoting economic efficiency and social

well-being through the systemic encouragement towards innovation and self-

improvement. Conversely, Bourdieu views the impacts of the social acceptance and

promotion of such ideologies as serving to fundamentally undermine this supposed

intent. For example, the function of the free market is said to act to the benefit of all

who take part in it through the appropriate and efficient determination of social demand.

However, the deregulation of these market forces produces a situation akin to a form of

‘economic Darwinism’ (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 102), whereby those with the most

economic capital serve to dictate the bearing of the market.

When this is considered in relation to the removal of the social safety-net, and

the privatisation of social services, it supports Bourdieu’s conception of neoliberalism

as ‘deriving its social force from the political and economic strength of those whose

interests it defends’; the holders of private capital, (1998, p. 96). As the ability of the

poor, or even simply less well-off, to influence market forces is limited, the market

thereby reflects the consensus of only those with the capital to influence it; effectively

13 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

disregarding the wants and needs of those without. This has served to produce a

situation whereby there are increasing disparities in wealth and income across all the

most economically advanced societies. This causes a consequential reduction in the

ability of those subjugated by the system to enact their prerogative of freedom of choice

in regards to their economic decisions – both occupational and commercial. In this way,

these inherent contradictions serve to subvert the individualist intentions of such

neoliberal policies (Bourdieu, 1998).

Likewise, David Harvey (2005) further outlines these principles in his

discussion of the development and growth of neoliberal philosophy, stating that the

inefficiencies and failures of such philosophies are inherently destabilising. For

example, Harvey serves to expand on the contradictory function of neoliberalism

regarding the limitations of the supposedly intrinsic notion of consumer choice. Though

the very point of market principles is to promote competitive practice, Harvey suggests

such Darwinian competition often results in monopoly or oligopoly, as stronger firms

are financially capable of effectively driving out the weaker, and are thereby able to

impose monopoly prices with no competitive incentive not to. This fundamental lack of

consumer choice simply serves to reinforce financial superiority rather than the utility or

innovation the market is supposed to encourage (Harvey, 2005, p. 67).

Furthermore, Harvey views the privatisation of social services as fundamentally

flawed, arguing that it makes no sense to have multiple competing social utility

infrastructures. He suggests that the privatisation of these services creates a ‘natural

monopoly’ whereby the possibilities for profiteering and other publicly exploitative

practices are very real. Moreover, the public has no means to combat these practices

through obligatory market mechanisms as there can often be literally no alternative

14 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

(Harvey, 2005, p. 67). This effect can be clearly seen in the monopoly Telstra has

maintained over the telecommunications infrastructure throughout Australia since its

privatisation.

Harvey also argues that such inherent contradictions are evident in the neoliberal

treatment of market failures. For while neoliberal philosophy promotes the importance

of individual responsibility and the consequential reduction in government intervention,

the adherence to monetarism as the basis of state policy encourages the neoliberal state

to favour the integrity of the financial system, and private institutions, over the well-

being of the population. As such, when economic defaults occur, even if it is private

institutions that have caused them, it is expected that state funds will be used to ensure

the solvency of the financial system. This is at the expense of the public through the

very use of tax-payer funds to stabilise private enterprise, rather than directly ensuring

the public well-being (Harvey, 2005, pp. 70-73).

This practice is hard to rationalise in regards to neoliberal theory since

individual responsibility would suggest that investors should be responsible for their

own mistakes. Yet it can actually be seen as reflective of the neoliberal promotion of

privatisation generally as it is specifically the role of government interventions that have

ensured the continued strength of the pure market economy (Harvey, 2005, pp. 70-73).

In this way, Harvey raises questions about both the legitimacy and actual effectiveness

of such neoliberal governance, as well as the detrimental social impacts these policies

can, and indeed do, produce.

While the issues Bourdieu and Harvey raise are primarily related to the

unregulated function of corporate culture under neoliberalism, these governmental

practices also hold relevance in terms of the neoliberal treatment of education. For

15 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

example, as will be further discussed in the next section, such market principles were

implemented by the Howard Government to directly dictate the federal funding

allocations for government and non-government schools (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p.

171). This system was developed in response to the migration of students from

government to non-government schools, and was styled as a means of ensuring

appropriate and efficient allocation of government resources; much like the intentions of

neoliberal principles.

However, this has served to produce results more akin to Bourdieu’s conception

of the impacts of neoliberal governance, whereby those with the capital to pay private

tuition fees, and thus influence the free market function of fund determination under

these policies, become the primary beneficiaries of those funds (Wilkinson, et al., 2006,

pp. 161-169). Furthermore, this reduction in expenditure within the public sector in

favour of supplementing the income of private institutions has only served to undermine

the ability of government schools, especially those in areas of low income or small

population, to influence the market in order to promote their own needs, and thus to

actually provide adequate education to their students.

Likewise, the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment [EBA] and other neoliberal

inspired education policies have often failed to account for the historical financial status

of private institutions – instead relying on current levels of income and expenditure. As

such, these funding arrangements also serve to promote the monopolistic practices that

Harvey holds as being a primary source of structural inequality under neoliberalism.

The Hawke Government’s ‘New Non-Government Schools Policy’ for instance,

provided direct funding for the development and expansion of non-government schools.

But while over 250 new private schools were opened in Australia following the

16 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

implementation of this policy, by 1995 the total number of non-government schools had

increased by a total of only 18, due largely to the acquisition and amalgamation of new

schools into already established, and more financially secure institutions (Wilkinson, et

al., 2006, p. 130).

This thereby supports Harvey’s assertion as to the movement towards

monopolistic practices and the consequential undermining of consumer choice;

structurally supporting financial superiority over the promotion of quality or innovation,

or the needs of the public. Furthermore, this direct state support of private institutions

generally reflects Harvey’s understanding of the government promotion of private

enterprise. As although they are not necessarily provided to ensure the solvency of these

institutions, the allocation of these funds, and the philosophies they promote, appear to

be an important factor in the increasing dominance of the private sector in Australian

education (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 130; Cobbold, 2007, p. 18).

But the growth of the private sector within education also carries with it a

number of other relevant consequences. For example, when one considers that it is those

least able to make active choices regarding their education who are being neglected by

these policies, the fact that growing proportions of parents are choosing private

education for their children is particularly pertinent. As an ever increasing number of

people with the resources to influence the market are coming through private

institutions, it will be largely the culture and principles imparted to them by these

institutions that will shape the future dominant cultural, social and political

environments.

This is evocative of Bourdieu’s (1973) conception of “cultural capital”, in that

when there is a social expectation towards the possession of specific forms of

17 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

knowledge, skills, or even basic inheritance, those without these forms of cultural

capital will be systemically limited in their ability to increase their own social mobility.

Bourdieu states that the ‘educational system fulfils a function of legitimation which is

more and more necessary to the perpetuation of the “social order”’ (1973, p. 60).

Therefore, it can be assumed that as the number of students enrolled at non-government

schools has increased, the forms of knowledge and culture that are imparted by the

private education sector have largely become the determining factor in the

categorisation of ideal forms of cultural capital, and thus the perpetuation of the social

order.

If it is the cultural capital imparted by these institutions that effectively serves to

reproduce the dominant social order, it is also important to consider whether it is

specifically for the reproduction of this social order that these forms of culture and

knowledge are being imparted in the first place. For, if the perpetuation of social

divisions and the encouragement towards financial and social advantage is the intent,

this serves to benefit the state, or more specifically those in power within the state, just

as much as any particular individual; a function reminiscent of Foucault’s understanding

of neoliberal governmentality (2007).

Foucault describes the concept of neoliberal governmentality as the ‘art of

government’ (2007, p. 91); deliberately designed to produce socially productive and

obedient citizens, both through forms of discipline, panoptic control and self-

government. This produces a system whereby the state is able to encourage the adoption

of desirable values and behaviours by the instilment within its citizens of forms of self-

regulation, through the promotion of socially productive values and behaviours; a

concept he describes as biopower (Foucault, 2007, p. 24).

18 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

This concept is expanded upon in the work of Nikolas Rose (1999, pp. 167-196),

who suggests that the inscription of self-regulation is achieved at the most basic level

through the individual communities of the subjects of governance. This is because the

community is a key location for the formation of individual subjectivities – through the

production of what Bourdieu terms cultural capital. In this way, governmental strategies

which seek to inculcate desirable values and behaviours through forms of ‘community

development’ are engaged in what Rose terms ‘government through community’ (1999,

p. 176).

In this light, the social promotion of the cultural capital acquired through

communities of private education serves to produce citizens who actively strive towards

goals; namely financial security, that allow them and their children to gain access to

such communities, and thus obtain the desired cultural capital. Through their pursuit of

this neoliberal ideal they serve to strengthen the economic power of the nation within

the global market; benefiting the state, thus reinforcing the power of the ruling class,

and therefore reproducing the dominant social order. Although this implies that it is

only through the communities of private institutions that these principles are imparted, it

is perhaps more likely that they simply represent the epitomisation of this social ideal.

As such, public schools would be likely be encouraged, or in fact mandated, to shape

their students to conform to the perception of what specific knowledge, skills, and

behaviour are supposedly essential for success in contemporary society (Foucault,

2007).

This trend has been empirically demonstrated through sociological research

focussed on the impact of neoliberalism on educational outcomes. Karen Nairn and Jane

Higgins (2007) for example, examine the extent to which neoliberal discourse is

19 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

apparent within student’s discussions about their futures, and their possibilities and

responsibilities within the labour market. Through an analysis of the discourse utilised

by the students in interviews and within their own “anti-CVs” it became evident that

economic motivation, the quintessential neoliberal rationality, was particularly relevant

within the students’ conception of post-school life.

This was characterised by their consistent references to the importance of

material possessions, home ownership, travel, and money in general (Nairn & Higgins,

2007, pp. 266-278). But some also made allusions to other forms of neoliberal

philosophy such as entrepreneurialist individualism, and the fundamentality of the

market; such as one student’s notion of “trading on personality” (Nairn & Higgins,

2007, pp. 272-274). The fact that these philosophies were present, and even dominant,

within the discourse the students’ employed demonstrates their appropriation of the

rationalities of the market economy, and their acceptance of the means by which

expectations regarding their lives are systemically structured. But Nairn and Higgins

also observed influences of neoconservativism, religious and familial motivation, and

even altruism within the students’ discussions. This implies that neoliberal discourse

may not be as pervasive within the production of self as Foucault’s conception of

governmentality would suggest (Nairn & Higgins, 2007, pp. 278-280).

However, the research conducted by Nairn and Higgins focused solely on those

who had not yet truly submitted themselves to the market economy, and in this way the

work of Peter Bansel (2007) serves to supplement their research by examining subjects

who were already part of the workforce. Utilising the individual life history narratives

of young Australian workers as source material for discursive analysis, Bansel sought to

examine the extent to which the discourses of the market and individualism are

20 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

intrinsically connected with discourses of freedom and choice within the subjects’

understandings of social function and structure. Bansel found that principles of

neoliberalism were much more dominantly prevalent within the discourse employed by

the workers than was evident within that of the students studied by Nairn and Higgins.

In fact, Bansel’s analysis highlights the view that their responsibilities as

workers, both to themselves and as economic agents, are those of ‘revision and

improvement’; that the self ‘needs to be constantly worked on and re/produced’ in order

to remain viable in the market economy (2007, p. 297). Bansel is particularly critical of

the implications for the social acceptance of such neoliberal principles. He states that

the oversimplification of the ideal of free choice – in that one’s ability to employ choice

is intrinsically dependent on numerous other social factors often unconsidered by

neoliberal philosophy – frequently produces a false sense of agency which leads to the

failure of the self to adequately manage the burdens of individual responsibility (Bansel,

2007, pp. 297-299).

Glenda McGregor (2009) also examines the impact of neoliberal

governmentality, in the sense of the conformative function of approved and promoted

knowledge structures. Specifically, McGregor sees the pedagogic promotion of what is

deemed ‘socially acceptable’, or at least socially useful knowledge, as producing a

system whereby those students that express resistant, or even simply alternative

perceptions are supressed and invalidated to such a point that they become actively

disengaged with the ‘official knowledge’. Furthermore, she argues that this

disengagement often leads to class disruption, and to them being labelled as rebellious

troublemakers (McGregor, 2009, pp. 347-348).

21 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

In this way, McGregor is similarly critical of the pedagogic and social

dominance of neoliberal philosophy. But her notion of the repressive nature of

neoliberal education also provides an alternative take on the conclusions drawn by

Nairn and Higgins. Perhaps the alternative perceptions evident in the students’

discourse in the research of Nairn and Higgins are suppressed, as McGregor suggests, to

such a degree that they are largely lost when faced with the reality of the individual

responsibilities of the labour market. Thereby reconciling the disparities between the

findings of Bansel and Nairn and Higgins.

Nairn and Higgins, McGregor, and Bansel are all concerned with the impact of

neoliberal governmentality on educational practice, and their findings essentially

support the theoretical assertions that have been considered so far in this discussion. As

the promotion of neoliberal principles of market function and individualised notions of

free choice within education serve to construct ideals of success that are practically

unattainable for those who do not have, and often have no means to attain, the specific

cultural capital deemed of value within the market economy. This then serves to

reproduce, and in many ways intensify, the social divisions that have limited the ability

of those less capable of making active market choices. Furthermore, it serves to

encourage those who are so capable to strive towards the institutions with which these

principles are synonymous. This thereby contributes to both the consistent growth in the

private sector, and the increasing disadvantage found within the public sector; the very

basis of the structural inequalities the Gonski Review seeks to address.

Each of these theoretical critiques and practical examinations of the function of

neoliberalism in society, aid in the illustration of the means by which the contradiction

between neoliberal principles and practice reinforce social divisions and power

22 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

relations, and produce the structural inequality evident within the findings of the Gonski

Review (DEEWR, 2011, pp. xxix-xxxii). But the majority of these discussions also

come to the conclusion, much like the Review itself, that the social acceptance and

perpetuation of these practices and the inequalities they produce are inherently

restrictive in terms of the progress of society, through the social subjugation and

structural neglect of large portions of the population. Furthermore, that due to this

subjugation, neoliberal states are also fundamentally unstable as these contradictions

serve to undermine the onus of individual choice that is promoted by their own

philosophies.

By way of alternative, some of these theorists and researchers call for a radical

departure from neoliberal policies in the name of structural equality and the social good.

Bourdieu, for instance, calls for a state capable ‘of countering the destructive action

which these markets exert… [on society], by organising, with the aid of unions, the

definition and defence of the public interest’ (1998, pp. 104-105). Likewise, Bansel

suggests that the failure of neoliberal philosophies to provide a nurturing environment

for personal and societal development ‘should not be borne as ours alone’ (2007, p.

299). Moreover, he, like Bourdieu, cites the role of organisational collectives such as

unions and alternative political parties in representing the needs of those who may not

be able to ‘make the “right” choices’ (Bansel, 2007, p. 298) – the very antithesis of

neoliberal individualised responsibility and market function.

Despite reiterating this critique of neoliberalism and endorsing a social

imperative to revolt against the currently established order, Michel Feher suggests that

direct confrontation with neoliberal policies is likely to be met with both political and

social resistance. Instead, advocating evolution over revolution, Feher proposes that any

23 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

challenge to neoliberalism should come from within rather than without, by ‘embracing

the very condition that its discourses and practices delineate’ (Feher, 2009, p. 21). Feher

thereby suggests that a more subversive approach to defying neoliberalism may

conceivably be more effective at achieving genuine social and political change than the

direct philosophical challenges posed by the likes of Bourdieu.

To illustrate his argument Feher cites both Marx and Foucault, in their

descriptions of the means by which oppressed social groups were able to utilise the

conceptual frameworks of the political and social systems that were subjugating them in

order to reconstruct the meaning of their respective positions in society (Feher, 2009, p.

22). According to Feher, Marx and Engels showed that the plight of the free labourer

characterised by dispossession and exploitation, came to be improved not by any full

scale revolt but by the utilisation and consolidation of their own labour power – inherent

to the very concept of liberal capitalism – in the form of worker’s unions (Feher, 2009,

p. 22). Similarly, Feher suggests that Foucault’s accounts of the women’s rights

movement, shows that feminists were able to appropriate the stereotypes of what it

supposedly meant to be female, such as greater levels of emotional investment, and

rework these traits as perceived strengths rather than perceived weaknesses of their

gender (Feher, 2009, p. 22). Through reference to these historical precedents Feher

seeks to demonstrate that the most effective way to challenge a powerful dominant

discourse, such as neoliberalism, is from within. Through a strategy which attempts to

rework key concepts to the advantage of those marginalised by that discourse.

Foucault’s account of the formation and rise of neoliberalism itself – namely, the

shift from a focus on full employment and public welfare through state intervention to

the liberation of economic interactions to promote capital accumulation – would seem

24 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

to imply that neoliberal thought was developed largely as a critical alternative to the

Keynesian policies which had led to economic ‘stagflation’ in the 1970s (2008, pp. 216-

217). However, despite the incompatibility of the intentions and practices of these

opposing political frameworks, the birth of neoliberal thought in fact utilised the

concepts of a number of other dominant socio-political ideals of the period which

served to ensure the neoliberal framework appealed to key values of the time;

specifically the fundamental importance of individual choice and freedom (Harvey,

2005, p. 5).

This concept of personal sovereignty, and the implications of social freedom that

are associated with it, had become important within western philosophy as a

counterpoint to the increasingly perceived threats to liberal democracy that were posed

by such political ideologies as fascism and communism. As such, in the appropriation of

these concepts of freedom, neoliberal discourse has been able to tap into the fears and

values of the period, and thereby rationalise the political disparagement of any form of

state intervention as an explicit and deliberate limitation of individual freedoms

(Harvey, 2005, p. 5).

Harvey’s account suggests that even neoliberalism, despite its direct and explicit

opposition to previously prominent Keynesian policies was still only able to gain such

political support and public acceptance largely through its appropriation and redirection

of previously established social values and beliefs. When viewed together this serves to

further strengthen Feher’s assertion that critical engagement from within, rather than

direct confrontation, is likely to be the most effective means of generating a redirection

of social and economic policies. More specifically, Feher argues that this may be most

25 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

efficiently achieved through the re-appropriation of the neoliberal notion of human

capital (Feher, 2009, pp. 25-38).

According to Foucault, the neoliberal concept of human capital is framed as the

accumulation of one’s personal value, which is informed and influenced by numerous

factors, including heritage, knowledge and behaviour (Foucault, 2008). But unlike

cultural capital, which Bourdieu suggests is imparted through the ‘habitus’ within which

one is situated (1973), the accumulation of human capital is fundamentally informed by

investment in the self. Moreover, while cultural capital is deemed valuable only in the

context of specific forms of knowledge and practice, one’s accumulation of human

capital is of value to the degree to which one is able to both employ and build upon that

which one already has (Foucault, 2008, pp. 230-233). As such, the emergence of the

neoliberal notion of human capital embodies the reassertion of individual agency into

the process of capital accumulation.

In the context of the neoliberal focus upon choice and personal responsibility,

this conception of human capital implies that although each individual may not be

imbued with inherently equal characteristics, principles or heritage, every person should

have the equitable ability to accumulate human capital, and thus increase their own

personal value, in equal measure if they so choose. However, despite this implication,

the accumulation of human capital is still fundamentally a function of investment, and

thus requires some initial form of capital – financial of cultural – in order to invest. As

such, the neoliberal promotion of privatisation and profitability, combined with the

widening wealth disparity and social divisions the focus upon individual responsibility

precipitates (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 97), serves to ensure that accumulation of human

capital is not a right shared equally among all, and it is precisely this inherent inequality

26 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

of opportunity and outcomes by which the Gonski Review delineates the need for a

veritable reformation of school funding in Australia.

With all of this in mind it becomes easier to appreciate just how the problems

that the Gonski Review seeks to address are fundamentally a product of the

neoliberalisation of education policy, and how the recommendation of policy reform can

be interpreted as a critique of neoliberalism. But following the insights of Feher, the

argument of this thesis is that the Review’s recommendations are carefully framed

within the discourse of neoliberalism rather than presented as a direct rejection of

neoliberal precepts. Through adopting concepts such as human capital the Review seeks

to redirect educational policy through the appropriation of neoliberal concepts rather

than through the kind of blatant oppositional discourses advocated by critics like

Bourdieu (1998) and Harvey (2005).

Practical Context

Considering the recommendations of the Gonski Review are designed to address

distinct deficiencies in the outcomes of Australian students it is important to understand

how the current educational policies have emerged as a result of earlier governmental

interventions. Therefore, the contemporary political climate of neoliberal influence that

concerned Bourdieu, Harvey, and Foucault (1998; 2005; 2008), and has inherently

shaped the context of the Gonski Review, will be discussed first. Then a more

traditional chronological examination will follow to examine how the Review fits into

the historical debates over education funding in Australia.

27 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Contemporary Political Context

It is commonly thought that the Hawke and Keating governments brought

neoliberalism to Australia in imitation of policy directions pioneered by Ronald Reagan

in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom (Dibley-Maher,

2012). However, in many ways the roots of neoliberal rationale in Australian education

policy could be seen earlier, under the government of Malcolm Fraser. For example,

Fraser’s implementation of ‘New Federalist’ policies which were aimed at reasserting

the responsibilities of state governments in regards to their traditional roles, such as in

education, in many ways represents the initial foundations for the development of

neoliberalism in Australia. This reassertion of state authority can been seen as akin to

the reduction of central governmental responsibility inherent to neoliberal philosophy,

in that the states were thus responsible for their own well-being rather than being reliant

on collective administration.

Furthermore, although Fraser did not specifically reject the policy innovations

implemented by the previous government of Gough Whitlam, he reaffirmed that the

responsibility of government schools was that of the state governments, while

concurrently maintaining that the federal government had a responsibility to provide a

basic guaranteed subsidy for the benefit of every student (LNCP, 1975). This implied,

given his government’s commitment to fiscal restraint and principles of ‘New

Federalism’, the federal support of non-government schools at the direct expense of

their support to government schools.

This proved true, and the Fraser Government implemented policies of

calculating rates for recurrent grants for non-government schools by an average cost of

education in government schools, while also steadily increasing payments made to non-

28 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

government schools through the six-level Subsidy Scheme developed before Whitlam’s

dismissal. Consequently, this saw funding for non-government schools rise markedly

throughout the remainder of the 1970s. Moreover, funding for other Schools

Commission programs during this period largely remained constant. Except in 1980

when the total funds made available for Schools Commission programs was cut by

approximately $38 million – much of which came from the public sector – with general

recurrent grants for non-government schools then receiving increases in 1981 (CSC,

1979, p. 33; 1980, p. 27).

In 1981, Fraser replaced Schools Commission Chairman Ken McKinnon with

the publicly Catholic Dr Peter Tannock. This appointment was criticised by government

school supporters due to the belief that Tannock would likely provide more support for

the interests of non-government schools. While this may not have been the specific

outcome, the trend of steady increases in federal support to non-government schools

continued, to the point that in the lead up to the 1983 federal election the Opposition

ALP under Bob Hawke made equitable education funding reform a signature element in

their policy platform (Smart, et al., 1986, p. 65).

The intention to implement a more equitable funding distribution between

government and non-government schools was supported by the Hawke Government’s

implementation of the Participation and Equity Program in 1984. This program aimed to

improve measures for retaining students through to the end of secondary school with the

allocation of an additional $71.5 million for use by schools, particularly within the

public sector (CSC, 1983, pp. 33-36). Likewise, they pledged to reduce Commonwealth

funding to high-resource non-government schools in 1984, and promised to further

29 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

increase federal resources to government schools throughout the early years of their

government (Smart, et al., 1986, p. 66).

However, despite the implementation of many of these policies the general

political direction of the Hawke/Keating Labor Government was to follow the previous

Liberal government agenda, especially in regard to economic policy. For example,

although they had proposed the reduction in funding for non-government schools, the

Hawke Government’s guidelines for the Schools Commission for 1985 stated that ‘the

right of parents to choose non-government schools is widely recognised in Australia’

(CSC, 1984, p.4); foreshadowing their intention to at least continue general recurrent

grants to non-government schools. In fact, Hawke’s new funding package for the years

1985-1988 did not actually include any phasing out of grants to non-government

schools, and instead all grants were maintained to at least 1984 levels (CSC, 1984, pp.

60-61). Furthermore, the 1985 guidelines also included a section titled ‘New Non-

Government Schools’, containing information on the government’s intention to support

the further expansion of the non-government schools sector – which had already grown

considerably under the support of the Fraser Government – through further grants for

construction and expansion projects (CSC, 1984, p. 73).

Despite this, federal support for government schools did indeed actually rise

over this period, and the Hawke Government established a scheme in 1985 for the

determination of funding for non-government schools based on the need of the school

rather than the per-capita basis that had persisted throughout the Fraser era. This was

achieved through categorisation into one of twelve funding categories utilising school

expenditure and school income, or Economic Resources Index [ERI], data (DEET,

1993, p. 51). Yet, Hawke’s reforms did little to actually redirect the changes made by

30 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

the Fraser Government. For example, the distinctions between the funding

responsibilities of the states and the Commonwealth created by Fraser’s implementation

of ‘New Federalism’ remained largely in place, with the majority of the increased

federal involvement in education occurring within the non-government sector. As such,

the expansion of the non-government sector had only been further supported under

Hawke, and this trend was continued by Keating who in 1992 committed an additional

$160 million in federal funding to non-government schools from 1993-1996 (DEET,

1993, p. 51).

The degree of direct support provided for private educational institutions

underlines the extent to which the Labor Governments of this period adopted neoliberal

principles. These principles were also evident in the dissolution of the Schools

Commission in 1987 in order to streamline the governmental process of education. As

well as in the government’s push towards a national curriculum which would in effect

prioritise specific areas of knowledge deemed to be of use. This latter proposal is

reminiscent of Foucault’s previously discussed conception of neoliberal

governmentality and biopower (2003, p. 243) in so far as the government intervened to

ensure that specific knowledge and values would be imparted through schools in order

to shape citizens for the perceived requirements of productivity and national

development. In this way, the Hawke and Keating Governments established the

groundwork for neoliberal educational policy environment that was subsequently

extended by the Howard Government, resulting in the problems the Gonski Review now

seeks to address.

Of the reforms to education policy made by the Howard Government some of

those with the most specific impact to the reinforcement of neoliberal principles were

31 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

the suspension of the ‘New Schools Policy’; due to it being perceived as prohibitively

restrictive and inefficient in its distribution of funds to non-government schools. As well

as the removal of the funding cap that had been placed on schools above ERI Category

6 under Labor; which effectively removed the limits of government support to private

institutions (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 151). Likewise, Howard promised the allocation

of an additional $19.5 million to non-government schools in the lead up to the 1996

federal election. This was to ensure established schools would retain their same level of

funding for at least one year, and new schools established after 1990 would be eligible

to receive funding increases, even if they were assessed as belonging to a higher ERI

category than before. Furthermore, the Coalition also promised a 10% increase in

recurrent grants to non-government schools to reflect the substantial increase in the

proportion of students both attending and remaining through to Year 12 at non-

government schools that had occurred throughout the previous two decades (Wilkinson,

et al., 2006, p. 151).

But perhaps the most pertinent of the Howard Government’s policy reforms was

the complete repeal of the ERI category scale and the implementation of the Enrolment

Benchmark Adjustment [EBA]. The ERI category scale established by the Hawke

Government, which had measured the income and expenditure levels of individual

schools, was abolished in favour of a socio-economic status [SES] scale for funding

categorisation to begin in 2001. This model, rather than measuring the actual SES of the

students’ parents, instead measured the SES of the Census Collection Districts [CCD] of

the schools’ students. While it may have been promoted by the Howard Government as

‘a more transparent and objective measure’ being based on ‘independent data’ that was

‘consistent to all schools’ (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 161), this policy failed to account

32 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

for the historic financial status of schools, thereby ignoring the actual resources of

historically wealthy institutions. What’s more, in preparation for the 2005-2008

quadrennium it was revealed that the SES scores of many schools had changed since

their last assessment. But while schools that scored lower received increased funding,

the Howard Government provided a guarantee to preserve the funding schools that

scored higher received until their new funding level reached that amount through

inflation (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 169).

While the implementation of the SES scale had the effect of promoting the

privatisation of education through the overt support of the non-government sector, the

implementation of the EBA on the other hand, served to promote this neoliberal

sensibility through the reduction in support to the public sector. The EBA works on the

premise that due to the steady migration of students from government to non-

government schools state governments are actually saving money on education.

Therefore when state enrolment data reveals a student increase in the non-government

sector, that state or territory is considered to have saved a notional amount, 50% of

which is deducted from its Australian Government general recurrent grant. Since its

implementation the EBA has been “triggered” in five states, for a total deduction in

federal funding for government schools of $134.2 million in 2006 alone (Wilkinson, et

al., 2006, p. 171). In this way, while the EBA served to promote the neoliberal

privatisation of education it also had the additional influence of allowing market forces,

based on a rationale of consumer choice, to guide governmental policies through

determining the actual allocation of funds within Australia’s education system.

But while this increasing dependence on market principles in education policy

was promoted as providing better educational outcomes due to the efficient allocation of

33 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

resources, these principles have in effect served to exacerbate the social inequity of

educational outcomes. According to the 2003 Programme for International Student

Assessment [PISA] Technical Assessment, Australia has the largest range of

educational outcomes of all the top ten performing countries (Cobbold, 2007, p. 21).

This means Australia has produced an education system that produces high outcomes

with low levels of social equity. The trend to privatisation has seen this inequality

primarily impact the government sector where the majority of disadvantaged students

actually attend. In the longer term, these social divisions and inequalities will be

reproduced resulting in forms of systemic inequality which Bourdieu saw as the

inevitable outcome of neoliberal policies (1998).

For example, there has been a 38% increase in non-government school

enrolment since 1986, with 22% of that occurring under the Howard Government.

Furthermore, due to the implementation of the EBA this has seen the proportion of

federal funds to government schools pale in comparison to those provided to non-

government schools, with private institutions receiving an average of $1,584 per

student, compared to the public sector’s $261 per student. As a result, the number of

non-government schools in Australia has increased by 214 (168 of which were under

the Howard Government), with 95% of these being independent institutions, while the

government sector reported closures of 186 schools throughout the same period

(Cobbold, 2007, p. 18).

Despite the theoretical assertions to their efficacy it is clear that the application

of neoliberal principles to education has resulted in more rather than less inequality. In

fact, through implementing policies of privatisation and market logic governments have

actively promoted the development and reproduction of inequalities, to the specific

34 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

detriment of those most powerless to challenge it; and it is precisely the inherent nature

of this inequality, as well as the symbolic governmental, and indeed social,

condemnation of those who cannot afford private education the Gonski Review is

seeking to address.

Historical Political Context

The examination of the contemporary socio-political environment that has

informed the Gonski Review serves to reinforce the connections between the

inequalities present within the findings of the Review and the inequitable function of

neoliberalism as discussed within the work of Bourdieu, Harvey, and Foucault (1998;

2005; 2008). But while this is an important association to grasp in regards to the context

of the Review, this examination is also concerned with the means by which the Review

serves to redirect neoliberal principles rather than challenge them directly, in a manner

in line with the suggestion of Feher as to the most effective means of subverting

neoliberal dominance (2009). With this in mind it is important to consider that Feher’s

proposal stands in contrast to the suggestions of a challenge to neoliberalism posed

within more direct critiques, such as those of Bourdieu, which often call for a distinctly

oppositional approach to socio-political reforms. In fact, it is precisely in this

unconventionality that Feher’s proposal aims to succeed where more direct challenges

fail; by appealing to both sides of the bipartisan divide within contemporary politics

over the efficacy of neoliberal principles.

Likewise, just as the Gonski Review has been inherently shaped by the influence

of neoliberal governance, so too had these neoliberal policies been similarly informed

by the vestiges of the numerous philosophies and strategies that had preceded them. As

such, it is important to examine the historical progression of Australia’s education

35 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

policy as an analysis of these changes allows one to accurately evaluate the evolution of

Australia’s education system, and how these developments have contributed to the

current arrangements. Furthermore, this type of analysis also helps identify just why the

unconventionality of the recommendations made by the Gonski Review are so

pertinent in regards to their bipartisan acceptance, and therefore the impact these

recommendations could have on the way in which we view the practicality of social

policy reforms in the future.

Formal education in Australia during the early periods of colonisation was

practically non-existent; there was no mention made towards it in Captain Arthur

Phillip’s Commissions of Instruction (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 2) and the British

Government at that time had no interest in the education of children from outside the

gentry, and particularly not the children of felons (Austin, 1961, pp. 1-3). As the

colonies progressed, however, and there was a steady increase in children of settlers and

freed convicts, a number of institutions – charity schools and orphanages, for the most

part – were established under the direction of the Anglican Church and were run with

minimal funding and support from the local colonial governments (Wilkinson, et al.,

2006, p. 3). These schools served to provide basic education to children of the poor in

accordance with the teachings of the Anglican Church, and in England individual

schools were commonly directly run by, and named after, the parish church (Lawson &

Silver, 1973).

In Australia however, following a Commission of Inquiry in 1826, the

Commission’s secretary, Thomas Hobbs Scott, devised a scheme whereby state fund

reserves were to be set aside in order for Anglican schools and churches to be founded

throughout the colony. This led to the establishment of the Church and School

36 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Corporation; a government supported organisation which was endowed with one-

seventh of the new lands of the colony for the sole and specific use by the Anglican

Church for religion and education (Austin, 1961, pp. 10-11). This was the first instance

of formal governmental involvement in education in Australia, predating the

establishment of state grants to National Schools in Great Britain in 1833 by more than

five years (Lawson & Silver, 1973).

However, in the wake of the British parliamentary passing of the Roman

Catholic Relief Act in 1829 there were political moves within Britain and its colonies

to limit the privileges and power of the Anglican Church. In Australia this led to public

campaigns against the Church and School Corporation on the grounds of religious

equality, and the eventual dissolution of the organisation in 1833 in favour of state

funds being directly distributed to all major denominations based on population size

(Gregory, 1951, pp. 5-9). Despite the general public support for this denominational

system there was significant and continued criticism of its inefficiency, as there were

often numerous religious schools competing for patronage in certain areas while in

other, often rural, areas no schools were available at all. As such, in 1847, under the

recommendations of the Legislative Advisory Select Committee formed in 1844,

Governor Charles Fitzroy established, primarily in rural areas, numerous non-sectarian

schools based on the model of the Irish National system. As well as two education

boards, both a National and a Denominational Board, to provide formal governmental

supervision for the administration of both school systems (Austin, 1961, pp. 46-49).

These reforms were largely in response to the global rise of liberalism

throughout the previous century, and the gaining of public support in European nations

and their colonies regarding the importance of the equality of the individual – a

37 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

principle inherent to liberal philosophy. However, the continued evolution of these

principles throughout the nineteenth century, and the view of government intervention

as infringement upon individuals’ freedoms that is associated with liberalism, led many

to believe that the most efficient means for the State to provide equitable treatment for

all regardless of individual affiliations was to limit, and even withdraw, the financial

assistance it provided to non-government organisations, specifically religious bodies.

Education, on the other hand, was increasingly viewed as the means to create the

equitable social landscape liberal philosophies promoted. Therefore, as education was

required to serve the needs of the nation, schools should be the responsibility of the

State rather than that of the Church. Many proponents favoured a system whereby

religious content provided in schools would be the same for all students, but when the

churches could not compromise for such a system the only solution was the

establishment of secular state schools and the virtually blanket withdrawal of state aid to

non-government schools by the end of the century (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 4).

Despite vocal criticism from certain religious quarters, this model for the

financial management of state and private schools as distinctly separate, which had

developed throughout the Australian colonies during the nineteenth century, remained

largely unchanged during the periods of Federation and most of the twentieth century

(Austin, 1961, pp. 194-195) The abolition of state aid to non-government schools and

consequent shift towards state run education was founded in liberal principles of

individual equality. This represents the first in a sequence of policy transformations

generated in response to changes in the dominant political discourses which have

shaped the administration of education funding in Australia throughout the twentieth

century.

38 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

The second significant shift in governmental education policy came in 1945

when opposition leader Robert Menzies sparked the first major debate in Australian

Federal Parliament on the subject of education. This led to a period of steadily

increasing federal interest and involvement in education throughout the following two

decades, culminating in 1964 when the Commonwealth, under then Prime Minister

Menzies, passed the States Grants (Science Laboratories and Technical Training)

Act; an act that set the precedent that informed the Rudd Government’s BER scheme in

2010.

Prior to this intervention, formal governmental funding for education had

remained strictly a state government responsibility. Although Prime Minister Ben

Chifley – on the suggestion of Menzies – had previously utilised Section 96 of the

Australian Constitution to provide the states with money for education programs, the

specific allocation and distribution of these funds had still remained the sole power of

the states (Smart, 1978, pp. 15-17). However, in 1956 the Australian Academy of

Science published a report which expressed concern over the distinct lack of scientific

expertise that existed in Australia in the wake of the large global technological

progressions – such as Sputnik – that had occurred throughout the preceding years. In

direct response to this perceived crisis in Australian education the legislation passed in

1964 provided for direct federal assistance to schools for use in the construction and

maintenance of formal science facilities. Most significantly, the science and technology

bill provided equitable grants to government and non-government schools alike in order

to ensure scientific development across the nation. This marked a major turning point in

the history of state aid in education financial aid to non-government schools had been

abolished in Australia over a century earlier (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 19).

39 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

While the establishment of direct federal grants in 1964 may have been

instigated by the observable failure of the Australian school system to produce globally

competitive scientific minds, the push towards federal involvement in education had

largely been building since the close of World War II. The population boom of the

twenty years following the war was more substantial than the capacity of the states to

meet the increased demand for, or sustain the quality of, education. This decline

prompted parent and teacher groups to organise a series of National Education

Conferences promoting the responsibility of education as a national issue (Wilkinson, et

al., 2006, p. 22). But more significantly, the 1964 legislation was representative of the

national, and even global, adoption of Keynesian influenced social welfare principles

throughout the post-war period. In the years following 1945 numerous social security

measures were passed, including provisions for pensioner, disability, and

unemployment benefits. Finally, in 1947 Federal Parliament passed the Social Services

Consolidation Act, ensuring that by the end of the decade the Australian welfare state

was well established to provide a comprehensive social safety-net (Herscovitch &

Stanton, 2008, p. 55).

This broad national increase in state aid, particularly in regards to new funding

for hospitals run by private and religious institutions, prompted appeals from the

Catholic School System for similarly equitable treatment by the state governments

throughout the period (Hogan, 1978, pp. 31-32). In 1963, the NSW ALP Conference

passed a resolution requesting the NSW Government to provide assistance to any school

deemed to have inadequate or non-existent science facilities. This request served to

reinforce the social and political importance of equitable welfare and social service

40 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

schemes and created a political precedent for the legislative reintroduction of state aid to

non-government schools the following year (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 31).

This initiative was followed in 1968 by the introduction of the States Grants

(Secondary Schools Libraries) Act which, like the previous grants, provided direct

federal support to both government and non-government secondary schools for the

construction and maintenance of school libraries (Smart, 1978, pp. 75-76). However,

the legislative precedent that had been established by the federal science and technology

grants proved not to be limited to federal legislation and in the four years between the

implementation of the science and library grants schemes, most state governments had

also begun providing direct assistance to non-government schools. This assistance

included loans and interest repayments on capital building works and, most importantly,

the provision of uniform per-capita recurrent grants for all non-government schools

(Smart, 1978, p. 77).

Moreover, in 1969 the federal government passed the States Grants

(Independent Schools) Act which authorised the provision of federally funded per-

capita recurrent grants for non-government schools. On top of this, in 1971, following

the report of the National Goals Sub-Committee, Prime Minister William McMahon

implemented the first general-purpose capital aid scheme for both government and non-

government schools. But while he pledged an increase in direct federal assistance to all

schools of approximately $80 million, some $60 million of that was specifically

allocated to non-government schools. As such, by 1974 a combination of state and

federal funding was to cover up to 40% of the cost of education for students in non-

government schools (Smart, 1978, pp. 101-102). This saw the annual provision of state

aid to non-government schools increase drastically; a little over $5 million had been

41 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

provided in the 1968-69 financial year, but this had grown to over $70 million by 1973-

74 – 80% of which was provided in general federal recurrent grants (Wilkinson, et al.,

2006, pp. 39-40).

Despite the formation of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools

Commission in 1972 under Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, which aimed to address

growing concerns over inequality in Australia’s school systems, the model of school

funding developed throughout the post-war period, of per-capita recurrent grants and

direct federal involvement in education funding, really only developed further through

his government. In fact, as has already been discussed, it wasn’t until the Liberal

government of Malcolm Fraser that the third major shift in Australian education funding

– under the influence of neoliberalism – truly began. However, Whitlam himself had

been a general supporter of state aid to non-government schools, and of the increased

$660.1 million that was made available to all schools by the Commonwealth during

1974 and 1975, over one-third was specifically allocated to non-government schools

(McKinnon, 1984, p. 107).

When all of this is considered in relation to the contemporary developments

previously discussed, it indicates just how the funding issues addressed by the Gonski

Review have been produced. These inequitable and illogical arrangements have been

produced accumulatively as each major shift in Australian political discourse has

merely addressed perceived failures of the previous system rather rethinking the

fundamental policy framework on the basis of genuine public need.

The initial withdrawal of state aid to non-government schools in the 19th

Century, for example, was informed by the rise of social liberalism and the principle of

universal equity, but the effect of this policy shift was to deprive large portions of the

42 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

largely underprivileged denominational sector of much needed funding (Hogan, 1978,

pp. 31-32). Likewise, the subsequent reinstatement of funding to non-government

schools under Menzies, was in response to the perceived scientific illiteracy of the

Australian population and the need to address this deficiency across all sectors of the

education system. But this served to create a precedent for government funding within

the private sector that is still at work today, and has thus laid the foundations for the

fundamental inequity the Gonski Review is aiming to address. Lastly, the neoliberal

shift towards privatisation and market mechanisms, with which the Review is mainly

concerned, was developed as a means to address the stagflation that had occurred under

Keynesian strategies of economic management. Each of these shifts were framed as

distinctly oppositional to the policies they seek to replace, often suggesting that they are

in fact remedying the structural failures or limitations of the previous socio-political

philosophies, with relatively little regard for the social implications of their

implementation. As such, they have each in some way shaped the context of the Gonski

Review, just as they were inherently shaped by the philosophies and policies that

preceded them.

But while governmental policy reforms have historically been tied to these shifts

in political discourse, there has not been any such major realignment to have informed

the recommendations made in the Gonski Review, as neoliberal principles seem just as

dominant and pervasive today as they ever have been. However, the actions of the

world’s leaders in response to the fallout from the global financial crisis [GFC] in 2008

may be able to illuminate a possible explanation for these reforms. In order to limit the

impact of the market failure that occurred, governments all over the world began

implementing economic stimulus policies to bolster the market and support

43 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

employment. The Obama Administration in particular provided billions of dollars of

public funds to ensure the solvency of numerous financial institutions. But as Harvey

(2005, pp. 70-73) points out, despite the intrinsic contradictions to neoliberal

philosophy that are implicit in the necessity of government intervention to ensure

market stability, this action actually supports the neoliberal commitment to monetarism.

Thus, government intervention in this context is read not as an attack on neoliberal

philosophy but rather as a measure required to ensure the strength of the market and

thereby guarantee the continuation of neoliberalism.

Likewise, the Gonski Review does not frame its recommendations as being in

opposition to any specific political discourse, as has been the historical trend in

governmental policy reform. Instead, while the Review does call for a revaluation of the

current system of education funding it does so through the utilisation and redirection of

the discourse and principles of these neoliberal philosophies rather than a rejection of

them. In a manner reminiscent of Feher’s strategy, and in line with the governmental

response to the GFC, the Gonski Review is thus able to address the issues of inequality

currently impacting Australia’s school system through reframing existing neoliberal

principles without the need to promote a direct critique of the dominant political

discourse.

44 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

The Gonski Review: critiquing neoliberalism from within

The genealogy laid out in the previous chapter suggests that despite its claims to

innovation, efficiency and individual freedom, neoliberalism engenders fundamental

social inequities. This is because the reproduction of predominant social structures and

hierarchies serves to reinforce and intensify the economic, cultural and geographic

divisions between sectors of the population. This then limits the social potential of those

unable to assert themselves within the market. Thereby limiting the potential for broader

social progression due to the increasing authority of those with market power, and the

consequential devaluing of alternative social perspectives, which reinforces the

reproduction of the dominant culture.

In terms of education policy in Australia, the neoliberal ascendency of the past

three to four decades has seen a consistent increase in government support to non-

government schools and the general promotion of the interests of private institutions,

particularly in regards to federal policy. These policies have largely been implemented

in terms of market determination, in that consumer choice is assumed to represent

overall consumer preference and thus dictate the most efficient allocation of

government funds. As such, this increased support to private institutions has come at the

direct expense of the public sector, which only serves to further limit the market power

of the underprivileged, for whom public education is not a choice but often the only

option.

With these problems in mind, it is reasonable to assume that the Gonski Review

would be concerned with attending to these same issues regarding the impacts of

neoliberal pedagogic policy; in so far as the socio-political context within which the

Review has been established is still primarily one dominated by neoliberal discourse

45 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

and practice. As such, the first section of this discussion will seek to demonstrate

precisely the extent to which the failures of education policy the review panel was

formed to address are in fact the very same impacts of neoliberal governance touched on

in the theory discussed in the previous chapter. Moreover, by establishing a clear link

between the failures of the previous funding arrangements and the theoretical critiques

of neoliberalism posed by the likes of Bourdieu and Foucault, the second section of this

examination will seek to demonstrate just how the Gonski Review positions its policy

recommendations in opposition to the conventional application of core neoliberal

principles.

But the key argument of this thesis is that the Gonski Review develops a critique

of neoliberalism from within, rather than through a direct attack on its core principles as

is commonly proposed. Therefore, the final section of this chapter will discuss the

means by which the Review frames its proposals within the discourse of neoliberalism

itself. Specifically, how these proposals function in the same manner as proposed by

Feher (2009), as a means of gaining social and political support from the established

agenda for its recommendations for reform. In order to do this, this discussion will

examine the discourse utilised within the Review to frame the deficiencies of the current

funding arrangements and justify the recommendations it proposes. In this way, it will

seek to establish how the rationale employed by the Review is in fact largely grounded

in the very same principles of individualism, investment, and equity of opportunity as

the neoliberal policies, and entire philosophy, it serves to undermine.

46 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

The Gonski Review’s neoliberal foundations

In order to establish the link between the critiques of neoliberalism and the

educational problems the Gonski Review was designed to address, it is necessary to

examine both the political impetus behind the Review’s commission, and more

importantly the findings of the Review itself. For instance, the opening of the Review’s

executive summary states that ‘over the last decade the performance of Australian

students has declined at all levels of achievement’, leading to a marked decline in

Australia’s international performance position. In 2000 only one country outperformed

Australian in reading and scientific literacy and only two in mathematical literacy. But

by 2009 six countries were placed higher in reading and scientific literacy while twelve

outperformed Australia in mathematical literacy (DEEWR, 2011, p. xiii).

Furthermore, the Review goes on to contend that this decline in Australia’s

academic performance is further undermined by the significant, and growing, gap

between the highest and lowest performing students. Drawing on the findings made by

the Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] (2005; 2009), the Gonski

Review affirms that this performance discrepancy is considerable in relation to the other

highest performing OECD countries, with a ‘concerning proportion of Australia’s

lowest performing students… not meeting minimum standards of achievement’

(DEEWR, 2011, p. xiii).

This problem of the inequitable function of Australia’s education system, and

the practicalities of its impacts, represents the predominant focus of the Review’s initial

chapters. For example, the Review outlines multiple common factors which contribute

to the production of these inequitable outcomes; including, socio-economic status

[SES], geographical location, indigeneity, and English language proficiency (DEEWR,

47 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

2011, pp. 113-122). The SES of a student’s parents for example, largely correlates with

the academic potential of the child, with one in four students from the lowest quartile of

PISA’s prosperity index performing below the proficiency baseline in Australia

(DEEWR, 2011, p. 114). Furthermore, the performance discrepancy between students

from the highest and lowest quartiles was found to be equivalent to almost three years

of schooling. Correspondingly, the most economically disadvantaged students are close

to 20% less likely to attain secondary or tertiary qualifications than those from higher

socio-economic backgrounds – 56% compared to 75%, and 17% compared to 35%

respectively (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 113-114).

Likewise, the academic performance of indigenous students indicates an average

performance discrepancy of approximately two years of schooling between the

indigenous and non-indigenous populations. Mean academic outcomes of the

indigenous population fall significantly below the national average, and at only 45%

secondary completion, even below the average of the entire OECD (DEEWR, 2011, p.

116). Furthermore, a student’s English language proficiency is an even more influential

determinant of academic outcomes. As English proficiency, for both English and non-

English speakers, determines one’s ability to comprehend tasks, and what is required of

them. Refugee students with limited English are more than twice as likely as those with

English proficiency to perform below the minimum standards, making them the highest

risk category for individual poor performance (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 117-118).

However, geographic location can have perhaps the most considerable impact

upon the academic outcomes of Australian students, with 81% of metropolitan students

attaining secondary qualifications compared to only 67% in regional areas and 64% in

remotes areas. But while these outcomes may not appear as significant as the

48 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

disadvantage experienced by other sectors of the population, they are troubling because

it is not simply individual student outcomes that are impacted by geographic location

but the outcomes of entire schools and regions (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 121-122).

But the Review goes on to outline the complex interactions between these

factors of disadvantage; in that the experience of one factor of disadvantage will

commonly be accompanied by, or even the result of, one or more other factors of

disadvantage. For example, the influence of indigeneity on all other factors is

particularly significant. The Review states that ‘indigenous students are over-

represented in all categories’ of academic disadvantage (DEEWR, 2011, p. 123),

indicating a systemic failure to address the pedagogic needs of indigenous communities

on a national level. But these impacts are also pertinent in regards to other sectors of the

population for whom the relationships are not necessarily so distinct. Non-English

speaking immigrants will often find it harder to both secure and retain employment and

thus are at a higher risk of also belonging to the sector of low-economic status.

Likewise, as has already been discussed, the SES of a student’s parents is indicative of

their academic potential, and particularly literacy (DEEWR, 2011, p. 114), indicating a

distinct correlation between SES and English language proficiency within the findings

of the Gonski Review.

With these practical issues in mind, the Review goes on to detail the structural

inadequacies of Australia’s contemporary education system in regards to the impacts of

disadvantage of opportunity on student outcomes (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 111-126). For

example, these discrepancies are especially significant when viewed in regards to the

levels and sources of funding for government and independent schools. While current

enrolment in government schools is approximately 2.3 million students nationwide,

49 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

non-government independent schools enrol only 490,000 students, and denominational

schools account for just over 700,000 (DEEWR., 2011, p. 45). Yet despite this, the

Federal government has provided the private education sector with more than $36

billion from 2009-2013, while only approximately $18 billion was provided specifically

for government run education over the same period – with additional funds totalling

nearly $25 billion made available to most schools through deliberately targeted national

partnership programs (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 39-42).

While this represents only a portion of the total funding for schooling provided

accumulatively through all levels of government, the federal allocation of funds

represents 15% of net recurrent funding for government schools, while 75% of non-

government schools’ funding comes from federal resources (DEEWR, 2011, p. 49).

Moreover, this represents 42% of the non-government sector’s total income, just shy of

the 43% received from total private sources (Keating, et al., 2011, p. 11). Likewise, as

has been discussed in the genealogy chapter, federal funding for non-government

schools is allocated on a model of the socio-economic demographics of the students’

communities and total enrolment levels rather than either the economic needs of the

school itself or, more specifically, the levels of funding received through fees and

donations (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 71-85). This means that government schools receive a

total of approximately $120 billion from all levels of government to cater to over 2.3

million students, while the private sector’s total income, including donations and other

funds, is over $114 billion despite enrolment totals less than 1.2 million students; only

half that of the public sector.

Consequently, in a manner distinctly in line with the neoliberal advocacy of

institutional privatisation, non-government schools often receive vastly more total

50 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

funding per student than those in the public sector (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 105-112), and

are therefore able to provide more opportunities for student development. Furthermore,

when viewed in relation to the disproportionately high levels of socio-economic

disadvantage within government schools (DEEWR, 2011, p. 9), this indicates a system

similar to the inequitable consequences of neoliberalism described by Bourdieu (1998).

Whereby those with the adequate resources, and/or pre-existing cultural capital, to gain

admittance to private institutions are better able to build upon their capital than those

without; a direct limitation on the opportunities available to many who desire them.

This is ostensibly the very antithesis of the equitable implications of neoliberal

responsibility, and as such is directly in line with the self-contradictory nature of

neoliberal principle and practice as discussed by Bourdieu, Harvey, and Foucault (1998;

2005; 2008).

These systemic failures of the current funding model form the basis for the

political impetus towards the Review’s aim of education policy reform, but they also

bear the hallmarks of the critiques of neoliberalism posed by Bourdieu (1998) and

Harvey (2005). For example, with approximately 20% of government school students

classified as disadvantaged compared to the estimated 6% of those who attend non-

government schools (DEEWR, 2011, p. 211), the reduction in funding to the

government sector is akin to Harvey’s suggestion as to the systematic removal of the

social safety-net under neoliberal governance (2005, p. 3).

Moreover, the Review explicitly states that there is a clear and ‘unacceptable

link between low levels of achievement’ and influences of socio-economic disadvantage

(DEEWR, 2011, p. xiii). When these types of discrepancies are considered in relation to

the removal of the social safety-net, the outcomes support Bourdieu’s assertion that the

51 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

continued strength of neoliberal governance stems precisely from the fiscal dominance

of those whose interests it represents - holders of private capital – at the expense of

those it does not. This then reinforces the clear correlation between economic capacity

and social potential in a neoliberal society (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 102).

In this way, the findings of the Review are also indicative of the subjugation of

those without economic capacity within a strict market culture as detailed by Bourdieu

(1998, p. 96). When governmental interventions are based on market mechanisms a

citizen’s expression of preference is dictated by their economic decisions. But this

mechanism depends upon the capacity of the citizen to be able to make such choices in

the first place. Thus the reduction in government support for public education represents

a reduction in the ability of the ‘capital-poor’ people or institutions effected, to actually

enact their prerogative of consumer choice, and therefore influence the market.

Likewise, this inherent lack of options is also pertinent in relation to Bourdieu’s

conception of cultural capital (1973). With the expansion of private education, there is

an influx of people with both the economic and cultural capital that is required in order

to gain admittance to the private sector. As a result, private institutions come to be

viewed as the characteristic representatives of the ideal forms of cultural capital, and

thus symbolically signify the means to achieve success. Therefore, the inability to

access these institutions acts as an intrinsic limitation on the economic and social

potential of an entire segment of the population; a function Bourdieu holds to be

fundamentally contradictory to the individualist intentions of neoliberal philosophy

(1998, p. 96).

On the other hand, the Review also notes that despite the persistently high levels

of inequality found within Australia’s education system compared to most other high

52 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

performing nations, the levels of equity within Australian schools has actually improved

since the 2000 and 2005 PISA assessments (DEEWR, 2011, p. 106). However, while

this may initially appear to be a positive trend in Australia’s academic outcomes, this

change can actually be largely attributed to a distinct drop in performance at the top end

of the academic spectrum rather than any improvement in performance at the bottom

(DEEWR, 2011, p. 106). When this is considered in regards to the impacts of SES on

academic performance and the increasing enrolment numbers in the private sector, this

is indicative of a decline in the academic proficiency of those of high SES, and thus a

failure on the part of the private education sector to deliver the quality and innovation

that a market-based system is supposed to provide according to neoliberal philosophy.

In this way, the overall decline in Australia’s academic outcomes over the past

decade is suggestive of Harvey’s account of the production and impacts of monopolistic

corporate function under neoliberal governance (2005, p. 67). Because, despite the fact

that private institutions are not the only possible option consumers have in their

academic choices, they have come to represent within the public sphere the only means

of acquiring the necessary cultural capital to achieve social success. Thus, the private

sector no longer strives towards the innovation and efficiency in pedagogic practice that

should be expected of them within a market structure, as high academic performance is

no longer the commodity that these institutions have a symbolic monopoly over. Rather,

they have in essence largely become purveyors of cultural capital, and as such are no

longer required to produce students with the same level of high performance in order to

remain competitive within the market. Instead, they are relying upon the fact that the

service they offer is ostensibly unavailable through any other means. Thus their

practices cannot be effectively challenged through obligatory market choices; just like

53 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

the ‘natural monopoly’ Harvey discussed when he applied his analysis of corporate

function to the privatisation of other public services under neoliberal governance (2005,

p. 67).

With the social desire for cultural capital thus effectively eclipsing the desire for

academic proficiency, it is also important to note the symbolic impacts the current

funding arrangements may be having upon the public valuation of these outcomes. For

instance, the distinct delineation between the responsibilities of the state governments;

that are primarily responsible for their own public sectors, and the federal government;

that is the primary provider of governmental support to the private sector nationwide.

This constitutes a symbolic promotion of the interests and values of private institutions

over those of the public sector on a national scale; in line with the promotion of

privatisation generally within neoliberal discourse. As such, this signifies to the public

that Australia, on a collective level, fundamentally supports the interests and principles

of private institutions, and of the privatisation of social services generally. Thereby

symbolically endorsing the forms of cultural capital that these institutions represent.

Furthermore, when the symbolism of these delineated responsibilities is considered in

relation to the actual reduction in funds to the public sector that occurred under the

Howard Government it only serves to further reinforce this perception (Wilkinson, et

al., 2006, p. 171).

The majority of the structural arrangements the Gonski Review highlights as

problematic relate to policies implemented by the Howard Government. For example

the Review provides a comprehensive breakdown of the function of the currently

utilised SES scale for funding level determination implemented by the Howard

Government (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 71-85). The Review stipulates that the

54 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

implementation of an SES scale is potentially the most appropriate measure for the

purpose of fund determination, as this ensures that funding is directly related to the need

of individual schools. Moreover, the Review also suggests that the current arrangements

serve to provide an efficient and unintrusive means for schools and governments to

manage the complex nature of fund determination without distorting the incentives

towards private investment. A consideration that is indicative of the influence of

neoliberal principles of reduction of government responsibility and endorsement of

privatisation within the current arrangements (DEEWR, 2011, p. 85).

However, the Review concludes that there are also fundamental flaws in the

implementation of these policies. For example, the community based SES measure

currently used is subject to substantial inconsistencies in the appropriate allocation of

funds. In that there is significant potential for error due to distinct variability in

household SES within most Census Collection Districts [CCD]. Additionally, the

disregard of the actual schools’ economic capacities serves to further compound these

discrepancies (DEEWR, 2011, p. 85).

Likewise, although it wasn’t specifically discussed in the Review, the Howard

Government’s implementation of the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment [EBA] can be

similarly seen as representative of the problems the Gonski Review is aiming to address.

Since its introduction the EBA has been “triggered” in five states, and has consequently

prompted a significant reduction in federal funds to government schools during this

period, with $134.2 million redirected to the private sector in 2006 alone (Wilkinson, et

al., 2006, p. 171). As such, the implementation of this policy can be seen as the essential

factor in the production of the inequitable funding arrangements detailed within the

55 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Review; the continued increase of support to private institutions at the direct expense of

the needs of the public sector.

But when considered together the Howard Government’s EBA and SES scale

policies can also be viewed as characteristic of the fundamental principles of neoliberal

discourse. For example, the formulaic SES scale necessitates lower levels of

government intervention through the removal of bureaucratic processes in favour of

functional efficiency (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 169). Likewise, the EBA serves to

promote the interests of private institutions over the public sector through the systematic

redirection of publicly allocated funds to private institutions, as well as the adherence to

market principles in the determination of these allocations (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p.

171).

The Gonski Review’s undermining of neoliberal practice

In so far as these policies can be seen as fundamentally representative of

neoliberal discourse, the Review’s explication of their inherent faults and its

recommendation for far-reaching policy reform could be interpreted as a functional

opposition to the practice of neoliberalism.

To start, the Review utilises the data on systemic inequalities to criticise the

focus of the current policies, stating that Australia currently ‘lacks a logical, consistent

and publicly transparent approach to school funding’ (DEEWR, 2011, p. 49). Then, in

somewhat of a condemnation of the neoliberal philosophy that informs the current

methods, the Review recommends a comprehensive increase in funding for Australian

schools on a collective basis. But the Review doesn’t just recommend an increase in

funding, it also stresses the necessity of a more equitable distribution of total funds

56 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

between the public and private sectors in order to meet the increasingly unfulfilled

needs of many disadvantaged students, who are primarily located within government

schools (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 164-183; pp. 211-212).

These principal recommendations reflect the inherent challenge to neoliberal

governance posed within the proposals of the Gonski Review. For example, the broad

increase in funding for education stands in direct contrast to the limitation of

governmental responsibilities fundamental to neoliberal discourse. Likewise, this can

also be seen in the Review’s promotion of more transparent and equitable distribution

arrangements to ensure socio-economic capacity is not a determinant of academic

potential. In fact, such a proposal seems more akin to the welfare strategies of post-war

Keynesianism (Herscovitch & Stanton, 2008, p. 55) than to the emphasis on individual

responsibility and market-based solutions favoured by the advocates of neoliberalism.

The challenge to neoliberalism is reinforced when one considers the Review’s

modeling of its proposed national resource standard for fund determination. This model,

based on 2009 enrolment data, estimates that the funding increase should be

approximately $5 billion dollars accumulatively from all levels of government; an

increase of over 15% on 2009 funding totals (DEEWR, 2011, p. 208). Also, that over

three quarters of these additional funds would be designated for the government sector

in order to ensure each school, regardless of location, size, or SES, is funded equitably

according to the resource standard (DEEWR, 2011, p. 209). This is primarily due to the

concentration of educational disadvantage within government schools, and the

previously discussed possibility for non-government schools to receive greater levels of

funding than they are actually entitled to. As such, these proposals are not only

suggestive of an intensification of government responsibility and a consequential

57 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

reduction in individual responsibility, but they are also reflective of a commitment to

socialised resource distribution that appears inimical to the free-market principles of

neoliberalism.

The Review goes on to propose that the new resource standard should be

overseen and managed by an independent National Schools Resourcing Body which

would ensure appropriate recalculations are made every four years and oversee the

distribution of funds to ensure sustained equity across all sectors (DEEWR, 2011, pp.

191-193). This system would require transparency and comprehensive administration

from all parties – parents, schools, and government bodies – in the consistent collection

of accurate enrolment data. Most significantly, implementation of this recommendation

would overturn the SES fund determination scale, in favour of a more detailed and

nuanced method of calculation (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 169). The Howard

Government’s implementation of the SES scale favoured efficiency of process in order

to limit the need for administration and thus public spending. However, the function of

the new resource standard would promote efficiency of outcome, in the appropriate and

effective determination and allocation of funds, in spite of the increased government

costs this process would incur (DEEWR, 2011, p. 209).

While the new resource standard would see broad increases in funding largely to

the government sector, the Review also proposes a new system of fund level

determination for non-government schools that would effectively serve to limit the

levels of government funding many of the more wealthy schools would be eligible to

receive. Unlike the current SES scale which uses the socio-economic demographics of

the students’ communities and the tuition fees charged by the school to determine

appropriate fund allocation, the new scale would consider the level of all ‘private

58 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

resources a school is capable of raising for itself rather than [simply] the private income

that it actually receives’ (DEEWR, 2011, p. 177).

Under the new scale historically wealthy schools would be expected to utilise

the private funds of the institution in order to maintain their resource level, rather than

being reliant upon government funding to supplement their tuition fees; thereby

undermining the endorsement of private interests intrinsic to the current neoliberal

policies. Furthermore, a school’s resource capacity would be measured through a more

specific census measure, such as an upper level of CCDs’ income, or possibly even a

direct measure of the SES of the students’ parents (DEEWR, 2011, p. 177). This would

therefore require a more comprehensive administrative approach than the current SES

scale, and thus more government spending than the broad CCD measure currently

employed.

Moreover, while the increased $5 billion allocated for education funding indeed

represents a reversal of neoliberal principles in its endorsement of government

responsibility and spending generally, the Review’s proposals regarding the appropriate

sources of these funds represent an entirely different aspect of this challenge. For,

although the federal government has, for some time, been the principle source of

funding for non-government education in Australia, the total contribution the federal

government currently makes to education is only $54 billion, or roughly 30% of the

total public contribution (DEEWR, 2011, p. 49). Conversely, the Review advocates

higher levels of central government involvement in the distribution and management of

education funding particularly in regards to the public sector. With over 30% of the

proposed increase in funding, which is primarily allocated to government schools, to

come from federal resources (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 179-181).

59 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Additionally, this proposed increase in federal involvement would be especially

great within remote or disadvantaged areas where individual districts, schools, and

students may be eligible to receive additional funding directly from the federal

government on a case by case basis (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 193-194). This promotion of

direct federal involvement can be seen as reinforcing the challenge to the reduction in

government spending and promotion of privatisation the runs throughout the Review.

But it also stands in direct contrast to the current function of more separately

administered state government responsibilities – representative of the neoliberal

tendency towards the reduction in central responsibility over collective support.

Principles that have been present within the Australian education system since the

implementation of the Fraser Government’s “New Federalist” policies, which served to

revert many federal governmental responsibilities back to the states, over three decades

ago (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, pp. 77-106).

Each of these recommendations serve to highlight the means by which the

Gonski Review stands in opposition to the fundamental principles of neoliberal

discourse. Yet, when one considers the scope of these proposals in relation to the

previous implementation of the Howard Government’s EBA policy, the

recommendations serve to emphasise perhaps the most pertinent aspect of the entire

challenge. The distinct and deliberate move away from market function in Australia’s

education system. For the EBA relied upon enrolment data to represent market choices,

and thus determine the most efficient allocation of resources. But this system largely

failed to account for the socio-economic limitations of those unable to make market

choices, and thus did not distribute much of this funding appropriately. Instead, it

60 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

largely served to respond to the market influence, and thus preferences, of only those

with economic capacity (Wilkinson, et al., 2006, p. 171).

On the other hand, the proposals of the Gonski Review seek to guarantee

equitable funding across all sectors of education, and from all levels of government, in

order to ensure economic capacity is not determinant of academic potential. In this way,

the Review’s recommendations represent a fundamental move away from the market

function of the EBA’s fund determination. As such, they serve to diminish the

importance of financial superiority to education quality, through the employment of

higher levels of government regulation and administration in education funding.

The Gonski Review’s adaptation of neoliberal principles

With all of this in mind it is easy to recognise just how the Review’s

recommendations stand as directly oppositional to the general principles of reduced

government intervention, free market interactions, privatisation and the promotion of

individual responsibility, that are fundamental to neoliberal discourse. However, despite

clear associations with the combative means by which theorists such as Bourdieu (1998)

and Harvey (2005) challenge the principles of neoliberalism, the manner in which the

Gonski Review’s recommendations are framed suggests a more nuanced approach than

one might initially suspect given the bearing of the actual proposals. In fact, the Review

employs a range of conceptual rationales that are often associated with the interests and

values of neoliberal governance. In this way, the Review evokes Feher’s (2009) strategy

to appeal to the conceptual sensibilities of both supporters and detractors of neoliberal

principles, and thus gain bilateral support for the reforms it proposes.

61 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

This appropriation of neoliberal concepts and principles to frame its analysis and

recommendations is apparent even throughout the preliminary discussions regarding the

context of the Review. In fact, the introduction to the executive summary opens by

stating that ‘high-quality schooling fosters the development of creative, informed and

resilient citizens who are able to participate fully in a dynamic and globalised world’

(DEEWR, 2011, p. xiii). Furthermore, the introduction goes on to conclude that

‘funding for schooling must not be seen simply as a financial matter, rather it is about

investing to strengthen and secure’ the future of all Australian students and the nation as

a whole (DEEWR, 2011, p. xiii). These two statements show that far from directly

critiquing neoliberal views of education, the Review is untroubled by associating its

agenda with the endorsement of concepts like the accumulation and employment of

human capital and the function of neoliberal governmentality (Foucault, 2007; 2008).

While these are not the only similarities between the proposals of the Review

and principles of neoliberal discourse, they are perhaps the most conspicuous. The

conceptual associations with Foucault’s notion of the function of neoliberal

governmentality for instance, is particularly prominent within the discourse employed

throughout the Review. Foucault describes the process of neoliberal governmentality as

a system whereby the state is able to encourage, and even enforce, desirable values and

behaviours, by the inscription within its citizens of a form of self-regulation through the

social promotion of such values and behaviours (2007, p. 24); and this is precisely the

means by which the Review frames the need to improve Australia’s education

outcomes. For instance, the importance of education is framed in terms of the benefits it

provides individuals, such as ‘higher levels of employment and earnings, better health,

longevity, [and social] tolerance’ (DEEWR, 2011, p. xiii). Yet the Review goes on to

62 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

affirm that these positive outcomes are in fact more pertinent in regards to one’s ability

to ‘actively participate in society, and contribute to Australia’s prosperity’ (DEEWR,

2011, p. 32); indicating that these outcomes are relevant not just for the advantages they

bring individuals, but also in terms of their benefit to the state.

In fact, the role of education in producing the types of citizens required by the

nation in order to meet its own ends – a form of social control Foucault titled

‘biopower’ (2007, p. 140) – is detailed precisely when the Review outlines the

implications for Australia’s declining academic performance. The Review states that

‘people without the skills to participate socially and economically generate higher costs

for countries’ through their increased likelihood towards disadvantage and illness and

thus requirements for government assistance and intervention (DEEWR, 2011, p. 108).

In this way, the Review’s recommendation for increased investment in education is

framed not so much as Keynesian-style strategy to reduce socio-economic inequalities,

but rather as a form of neoliberal governmentality, designed to serve the interests of the

nation by avoiding even higher costs to government in the future. In the longer term, a

better educated population will alleviate demands on welfare and public administration,

as citizens become increasingly adept at governing themselves.

In a similarly neoliberal fashion the Review highlights the need for more

cooperative and flexible funding distribution arrangements between the federal, state

and local governments. The Review states that incrementally and individually

implemented changes to funding roles will allow this system to account for the

‘differences between the states and territories…, as well as the capacity of different

jurisdictions to fund growth’ (DEEWR, 2011, p. 180). This endorsement of flexibility in

the funding process serves to reinforce the neoliberal principle of individualism, as the

63 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

specific needs and resources of different states and districts would then be recognised

and accounted for to ensure efficiency and equity in the funding process rather than the

more blanket, per student loadings of previous policies. Likewise, this promotion of

individualist flexibility is also relevant in terms of the individual needs of schools and

students, particularly in regard to disability. Whereby the Review proposes individual

grants should be directly provided to students, schools, and districts on a case by case

basis. As opposed to the targeted programs of the Howard Government which

effectively treated all members of any particular social category as inherently the same

in terms of need (DEEWR, 2011, pp.183-185).

Moreover, the Review endorses the direct involvement of local communities in

the administration and development of both schools and students, further reinforcing the

promotion of individual responsibility for one’s own, and their children’s outcomes. For

instance, it details the importance of parent and community engagement and

involvement in schooling for the improvement of academic outcomes, especially for

disadvantaged students. The Review states that community involvement in education

‘encourages positive attitudes towards school, improved homework habits, reduced

absenteeism, and can enhance academic achievement’ (DEEWR, 2011, p. 144). This

promotion of community involvement to enhance educational outcomes is an example

what Nicholas Rose (1999, p. 176) terms ‘government through community’; an element

within the repertoire of neoliberal governmentality which seeks to mobilise community

engagement in order to lessen the need for direct governmental intervention.

Additionally, the promotion of individual responsibility is also evident in the

stance the Review takes on the responsibilities of parents and school communities

within private institutions. Stating that any measure of needs based funding within the

64 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

private sector should fundamentally ‘preserve incentives for parents to invest in the

education of their children where they choose to and are able to do so’ (DEEWR, 2011,

p. 177). In this way, the Review at once emphasises the rights of individual freedom in

one’s choice of educational institution, as well as the responsibilities of those who

choose private education to provide adequate contributions to their children’s education.

Furthermore, this emphasis on personal responsibility is reinforced through the

proposed possibility of fund determination in non-government schools relying upon the

SES of student’s parents, rather than the more collective means of the average of their

CCDs (DEEWR, 2011, p. 177).

But the Review also promotes the involvement of parents and local communities

in the operation and culture of all schools, through the suggestion that it is in fact the

parents and communities who know best what individual schools and students require in

terms of the application of funds and the design of the learning environment (DEEWR,

2011, p. 220). As such, the Review is able to concurrently promote the flexibility and

efficiency of operation which neoliberal principles aspire to produce, as well as the

individual responsibility for education outcomes intrinsic to community engagement.

Furthermore, the Review’s encouragement of community engagement also

extends to the promotion of the philanthropic involvement of the local community. The

Review details the benefits of financial philanthropy on student outcomes, and the

importance of donations to the current levels of funds available to the non-government

sector. However, it is quick to note that this is not the only means of philanthropy that

can, and should, be explored by educational institutions within all sectors. For example,

the Review suggests that schools and communities should seek the involvement of

citizens from various professional backgrounds to supplement the knowledge of

65 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

teachers, as well as impart specific expertise through career information, or the running

of classes in their areas of interest (DEEWR, 2011, p. 199).

Similarly, drawing on the results of the Australian Indigenous Mentoring

Experience [AIME] which partners university students with indigenous high school

students, the Review also suggests that appropriate community members should be

encouraged to act as mentors to students, particularly within areas of disadvantage. This

recommendation is based on the remarkable success of the AIME program which has

seen 25.1% of students progress through to university, compared with the national

average of only 3.2% of indigenous students (DEEWR, 2011, pp. 200-201). The

endorsement of community involvement and philanthropic activity in funding and

enhancing the school system evokes neoliberal principles in so far as it can be seen as

relieving some of the responsibility of the state by promoting individual accountability

for the outcomes of one’s community.

As the preceding discussion illustrates, the Review draws upon a number of key

neoliberal principles in framing and justifying many of its major recommendations. But

perhaps the most significant deployment of neoliberal discourse within the Review is its

consistent reference to the fundamental function of education as an investment. The use

of this word automatically carries connotations of several neoliberal principles: from the

investment one must make in oneself through accessing education to develop one’s

portfolio of human capital, to the investment of the state in the education of its citizens

to encourage economic productivity and social cohesion.

However, notwithstanding the range of contexts, the references to investment are

fundamentally framed, in all these instances, as investments in the future potential of

Australia’s students. In fact, the Review states specifically that ‘returns on educational

66 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

investment are particularly high for children from disadvantaged backgrounds’

(DEEWR, 2011, p. 108). Importantly, this suggests that the form of capital that

education provides can be enhanced and employed regardless of the cultural valuation

of the specific knowledge that constitutes it, or the “habitus” within which it is

imparted. This is the fundamental difference between Bourdieu’s notion of cultural

capital which is categorised as functional based upon its social valuation (1973), and

Foucault’s conception of human capital which is categorised as functional based on the

extent to which one is able to employ and build upon it (2008).

But this association between the significance of investment as described by the

Gonski Review and the utility of human capital in Foucault’s analysis, is relevant to this

discussion due to Feher’s assertion that the re-appropriation of the concept of human

capital is critical to an effective subversion of neoliberal discourse (2009, pp. 25-38).

Feher states that ‘challenging the neoliberal condition from within, that is, embracing

the idea that we are all investors in our human capital… could thus be a way of

relaunching the politicisation of the personal’ more in line with the welfare regimes of

the post-war period (2009, p. 38). With Feher’s proposal in mind, when one considers

the conceptual correspondences between the Review’s promotion of investment and

Foucault’s conception of human capital in relation to the increase in funding for public

education, this appears to be precisely what the Review seeks to achieve.

Just as Feher suggested, through the appropriation of the principles of human

capital the Gonski Review is able rationalise the recommendation of increased

government intervention due to its simultaneous emphasis on the importance of

investment for the future, which consequently serves to reflect neoliberal principles of

capital accumulation. For example, by framing education as an investment, educational

67 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

attainment thus becomes the means to increase one’s own potential. As such, investing

in that potential remains inherently the responsibility of the individual to ensure they

effectively utilise the financial investment made by the state to maximise their own

potential returns. Furthermore, this emphasis on investments and returns also serves to

promote the necessity of economic productivity to individual social status. As such,

those who strive for educational attainment are working to shape themselves to be ‘able

to adequately participate in the workforce and contribute as productive citizens’

(DEEWR, 2011, p. 211), and thus contribute to the progress of the state.

Through the incorporation of these elements of neoliberal discourse within the

rationale for its recommendations, the Gonski Review is able to promote the need for

more socialised funding arrangements and government involvement in education while

still maintaining conceptual links with the neoliberal principles it seems to challenge.

Furthermore, it serves to ground the Review within the neoliberal framework of

investment in human capital accumulation, and the endorsement of individualist

flexibility to improve the efficacy of investment in student outcomes, and thus stimulate

economic productivity.

In this way the Review can be seen as encapsulating the fundamental themes of

Feher’s strategy. While appropriating a range of conceptually compatible neoliberal

values it is able to encourage the adoption of an education system reliant upon large

government interventions, while still promoting community management and individual

responsibility for education outcomes, and is thus able to appeal to the sensibilities of

the very cause it seeks to transform. The Review has thus been able to defy neoliberal

logic while utilising neoliberal concepts, through the suggestion that investment in the

accumulation of human capital is the responsibility of the state, the community and the

68 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

individual all at once. Furthermore, the Review is able to reinforce the social need for

these reforms in the context of the preservation of neoliberal values of equity of

opportunity and the state’s fundamental need for economically productive citizens. This

is underscored by positioning this responsibility in relation to the recent failures in

Australia’s academic outcomes and the subsequent implications this has towards the

supposed equity of the neoliberal market mechanism that has informed many of the

current policies.

By framing the rationale for the proposed reforms in such a manner the Review

is able to enhance the public endorsement and political implementation of its reforms

without explicitly challenging the conceptual foundations of the dominant neoliberal

discourse. In this way, the Review has avoided the perils of adversarial confrontation in

order to achieve political and social endorsement on a bipartisan level. But what is

perhaps most interesting about the associations between Feher’s proposal of an

evolution of neoliberal policy and the utilisation of neoliberal discourse within the

Review is the fact that Feher proposes this as a means to undermine the foundations of

contemporary neoliberal conceptions of self and society, rather than simply the function

of a single institutional sector (2009, p. 21).

With this in mind it would be reasonable to question the extent to which the

Gonski Review could be seen as endorsing a broader social challenge to neoliberal

philosophy. As such, when one considers the contemporarily accepted notion of

education as an instrument for social change at a foundational level (Freire, 1995), the

Review’s challenge to the neoliberal influence of current education funding policies

begins to be more indicative of these broader social implications Feher envisaged.

69 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Freire suggests that through the removal of racial, economic, and cultural

divisions within the structure and practice of our education system, it is possible to

diminish the spectrum of human difference that serves to subjugate and devalue whole

sections of the population through the breakdown of these divisions within the social

perspectives of the next generation (Freire, 1995, p. 47). Thereby, when one considers

the fact that through the appropriation of neoliberal principles the Gonski Review

possesses the means to ensure widespread social and political support for major reforms

– the very basis of Feher’s proposition – its recommendations begin to appear more like

the far-reaching social change that both Freire and Feher had in mind.

70 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to examine the Gonski Review from multiple

perspectives in order to situate the findings and recommendations of the Review into a

more nuanced understanding of its social, political and economic contexts. The

approach utilised in this discussion built upon Foucault’s genealogical method in order

to account for the complexities of influence at play within the realm of educational

policy in Australia (Foucault, 1993). For example, the practical context of the Review

was established through an analysis of the development of the education funding

policies currently in place. These policies were considered in relation to the theoretical

work of Bourdieu (1973; 1998), Harvey (2005), and Foucault (2007; 2008), among

others, in order to illuminate the associations between the development and impact of

such policies and the rationales and practices of neoliberal governance.

Building on the work of these theorists this thesis develops a genealogical

analysis to show how the current problems of education funding in Australia have been

developed through consistent political reforms designed to address the deficiencies of

the previous systems rather than public welfare. Additionally, how Australian education

policy has become enmeshed with neoliberal governance through a 40 year process,

beginning with Fraser’s implementation of the “New Federalist” policies. This

ascendancy of neoliberalism within education policy has resulted in the further

exacerbation of inequality in educational outcomes. To address these inequalities the

Gonski Review proposes the implementation of policies designed to reduce inequity and

disadvantage through increased government spending targeted more strategically to

address individual educational needs. Therefore, in advocating policies that challenge

71 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

the traditional practice of neoliberalism, the Gonski Review can be seen as offering a

fundamental challenge to the actual function of neoliberal governance.

The nature of this challenge, however, is for the most part neither adversarial nor

direct. Rather, this thesis contends that the Review disguises its challenge by utilising

many key principles of neoliberal discourse to rationalise and clarify its proposals for

reform. This is evident in the associations that have been laid out between many of the

Review’s proposals and the practices of neoliberal governmentality, as discussed by

Foucault (2007) and Rose (1999). But perhaps the most pertinent of these neoliberal

allusions is the consistent reference within the Review to the primary role of education

as an investment - both in the future of the individual and the nation. This understanding

of education is grounded firmly within conceptions of human capital which Foucault

(2008) has shown to be a fundamental principle of neoliberalism.

In conclusion, instead of direct confrontation with neoliberalism the

Review deploys a strategy of ‘critique from within’; which is to say, that while its

recommendations challenge key precepts of neoliberal practice, it mounts this critique

from within a modified discourse of human capital. In short, the Gonski Review

positions itself in such a manner as to be able to appeal to the philosophical sensibilities

of both supporters and detractors of neoliberal rationale. In adopting this strategic

approach, the Review appears to endorse Feher’s (2009) view that since neoliberalism is

too dominant to challenge directly, the most effective option for promoting social policy

change is to speak from within a neoliberal discursive framework. Thus, despite the

specifics of its recommendations standing as a challenge to key aspects of neoliberal

governance, the Review has nevertheless, as Abbott’s endorsement indicates (Griffiths,

2013), been successful in securing bipartisan support for the implementation of its

72 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

policies. When this is considered in relation to the work of Freire (1995), it becomes

apparent that the widespread acceptance and successful implementation of these

proposals does not just have implications for the future of neoliberal practice in

education, but also for the possible redirection of neoliberal discourse within society

more broadly.

73 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

References

Austin, A. G. (1961). Australian Education 1788-1900: Church, State and Public Education in

Colonial Australia. Melbourne, VIC, AU: Pittman.

Bansel, P. (2007). Subjects of Choice and Lifelong Learning. International Journal of

Qualitative Studies in Education, 20:3, 283-300.

Batstone, R. (1995). Grammar in Discourse: Attitude and Deniability. In G. Cook, & B.

Seidlhofer, Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 197-213). Oxford, GB:

Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In R. Brown, Knowledge,

Education and Cultural Change: Papers in the Sociology of Education (pp. 71-112).

London, GB: Tavistock.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of Our Time. Cambridge, GB:

Polity Press.

Cobbold, T. (2007). The Great School Fraud: Howard Government school education policy,

1996-2006. Professional Voice, 5(2), 17-22.

Commonwealth Schools Commission. (1979). Triennium 1979-81. Report for 1980. Canberra,

ACT, AU: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Commonwealth Schools Commission. (1980). Triennium 1979-81. Report for 1981. Canberra,

ACT, AU: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Commonwealth Schools Commission. (1983). Report for 1984: Response to the Government

Guidelines. Canberra, ACT, AU: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Commonwealth Schools Commission. (1984). Funding Policies for Australian Schools.

Canberra, ACT, AU: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Commonwealth Schools Commission. (1984). Report for 1985: Response to Government

Guidelines. Canberra, ACT, AU: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2011, December). 2011

Review of Funding for Schooling. Retrieved from Department of Education,

Employment and Workplace Relations:

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/Documents/Review-of-Funding-

for-Schooling-Final-Report-Dec-2011.pdf

Department of Employment, Education and Training. (1993). Annual Report 1992-1993.

Canberra, ACT, AU: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Dibley-Maher, P. (2012). Friend of Foe? The impact of the Hawke/Keating neoliberal reforms

on Australian workers and the Australian public sector. Brisbane, QLD, AU:

Queensland University of Technology.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London, GB: Pearson Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: A Critical Study of Language. London, GB:

Pearson Education Limited.

74 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Feher, M. (2009). Self-Appreciation; or, The Aspirations of Human Capital. Public Culture,

21:1, 21-41.

Foucault, M. (1977). Nietzsche, Genealogy, History. In D. F. Bouchard, Language, Counter-

Memeory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews (pp. 139-164). Ithaca, NY, US:

Cornell University Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. New York, NY, US: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1993). About the Beginnings of the Hermeneutics of the Self: Two Lectures at

Dartmouth. Political Theory, 21:2, 198-227.

Foucault, M. (2003). Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France 1975-1976.

London, GB: Picador.

Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977-

1978. London, GB: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-79.

London, GB: Palgrave Macmillan.

Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of Hope. New York, NY, US: Continuum.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press.

Gregory, J. S. (1951). Church and State Aid in Victoria: A study in the development of secular

principles of government as revealed by the abolition of State aid to religion and

denominational education in Victoria. M.A. Thesis, University of Melbourne.

Griffiths, E. (2013, August 2). Tony Abbott says Coalition will honour Gonski school funding

plan for four years. Retrieved from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-

02/coalition-to-support-gonski-school-funding/4861102

Hartwich, O. M. (2009). Neoliberalism: The Genesis of a Political Swearword. St Leonards,

NSW, AU: The Centre for Independent Studies.

Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.

Herscovitch, A., & Stanton, D. (2008). History of Social Security in Australia. Family Matters,

80, 51-60.

Hogan, M. (1978). The Catholic Campaign for State Aid: The Study of a Pressure Group

Campaign in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory 1950-1972.

Sydney, NSW, AU: Catholic Theological Faculty.

Keating, J., Annett, P., Burke, G., & O'Hanlon, C. (2011, June). Mapping Funding and

Regulatory Arrangements Across the Commonwealth and States and Territories.

Retrieved September 2012, from Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood

Development and Youth Affairs:

http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/Mapping_Funding_and_Regulatory_Arr

angements_-July_2011.pdf

Krugman, P. (1995). Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in an Age of

Diminished Expectations. New York, NY, US: W. W. Norton & Company.

75 | S a m H a w k i n s – 3 0 9 2 3 1 1 5 9 1 0 / 2 0 1 3

Lawson, J., & Silver, H. (1973). A Social History of Education in England. London, GB:

Routledge.

McGregor, G. (2009). Educating for (Whose) Success?: Schooling in an Age of Neo-

Liberalism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 345-358.

McKinnon, K. (1984). Meeting Needs: Seven Years' Hard Labour. In I. Palmer, Melbourne

Studies in Education 1984 (pp. 107-108). Melbourne, VIC, AU: Melbourne University

Press.

Millane, E. (2013, September 17). Ageing population missed by Abbott's ministry. Retrieved

from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-17/millane-ageing-population-

abbott-ministry/4963116

Mirowski, P., & Plehwe, D. (2009). The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal

Thought Collective. Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press.

Nairn, K., & Higgins, J. (2007). New Zealand's Neoliberal Generation: Tracing discourses of

economic (ir)rationality. Internation Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20:3,

261-181.

Programme for International Student Assessment. (2005). PISA 2003 Technical Report. Paris,

FR: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Programme for International Student Assessment. (2009). PISA 2006 Technical Report. Paris,

FR: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Port Chester, NY, US:

Cambridge University Press.

Smart, D. (1978). Federal Aid to Australian Schools. St Lucia, QLD, AU: University of

Queensland Press.

Smart, D., Scott, R., Murphy, K., & Dudley, J. (1986). The Hawke Government and Education

1983-85. Politics, 21:1, 63-81.

The Liberal and National Country Parties. (1975). Education Policy. Canberra, ACT, AU:

Liberal Party Federal Secretariat.

Wilkinson, I. R., Caldwell, B. J., Selleck, R. W., Harris, J., & Dettman, P. (2006). A History of

State Aid to Non-Government Schools. Canberra, ACT, AU: Department of Education,

Science and Training.