1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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).

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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).

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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).

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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).

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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-

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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.

43. 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).

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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.

49. 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

50. 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.

51. 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,

52. 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

53. 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,

54. 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