There are three simple reasons why Gonski is the right way to fund education in Australia, writes Jane Caro.

I have been listening with interest to the statements Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne has been making in the past 24 hours.

And, while I confess I had very little faith in the 'unity ticket' on education funding touted by Pyne and Abbott before the election, even I did not expect the promise to be broken quite so quickly.

In the interests of clarifying things in my own mind and perhaps those of a few of my readers, I decided I would look at what Minister Pyne is saying and what he isn't saying.

Needs based?

Christopher Pyne says that we already have a needs-based education funding scheme. He is referring to the Socio-Economic Status scheme, implemented by the Howard government in 2000.

What he isn't saying is that the SES funding scheme only applies to non-government schools.

Which is a little like having a hunger relief program that is only available to the well-fed. State schools – which enrol the vast majority of disadvantaged students – frequently have to apply to the more cash strapped state governments for any extra money.

Socio-economic status?

Christopher Pyne says that the SES is a funding scheme that allocates extra money based on socio-economic status.

What he isn't saying is that the socio-economic status of private school students was worked out according to the census code of where they lived. This meant kids from families which could afford to pay as much as five-figure annual school fees but who lived in disadvantaged areas – often regional areas – were assessed as if they came from families with the incomes of their poorest neighbours.

To apply for disadvantaged funding in NSW, by contrast, state schools had to give actual information about income and employment status of the families of their students.

Funding?

Christopher Pyne says that he is keeping his election promise by committing the same 'envelope' of funding for the next four years.

What he isn't saying is that the continuation of the current approach – regardless of the envelope and assuming enrolments stay the same - would mean that Commonwealth funding for government schools would increase by just over $365 million (eight per cent) by 2015-16, while funding for non-government schools would increase by almost $2.7 billion (35 per cent) over the same period).

Shambles?

Christopher Pyne is saying that the Gonski formula as legislated by the previous Federal government is a 'shambles'.

What he isn't saying is that it is a much clearer and simpler funding formula than the current one. Here is how it works: All students receive a base amount of public funding calculated against a national resource standard (the amount of money needed to pay for a decent standard of education).

Public school students would receive the full amount because they do not charge fees. Private schools would receive a scaled amount depending on their capacity to reach the national resource standard via fees and private sources of income.

On top of that would be loadings for evidence-based disadvantage which will go to all schools regardless of ownership depending on how many actual (as opposed to the SES virtual) disadvantaged students a school enrolled.

I've just explained the 'shambles' in about 100 words. Whole books have been written trying to explain how the SES formula works. I know, I've written one.

Inequitable?

Christopher Pyne says Gonski is inequitable.

What he isn't saying is that the SES formula was deeply inequitable, not just between public and private school students – although it was most definitely that – but between private schools thanks to the funding maintained and funding guaranteed equations that meant some private schools received much more money than the SES formula indicated, while others missed out.

This funding maintained/guaranteed permutation also added layers of complexity to an already hideously complex funding scheme – but let's not go there.

Money?

Christopher Pyne says education isn't all about money.

What he isn't saying is that it may not be about money for schools enrolling the least expensive to educate kids, many of which also charge fees, but that it is very much about money for schools struggling to teach growing concentrations of hard to educate kids in increasingly marginalised and under-funded schools.

Outcomes

Christopher Pyne says improving education outcomes is about teacher quality, principal autonomy, a robust curriculum and parental engagement.

What he isn't saying is that improving teacher training and on-going professional development all costs money. Go to any professional development course and it will be wall-to-wall private school teachers, not because the public school teachers don't want to attend but because their schools cannot afford to send them.

What the education minister isn't saying is that there is no evidence that principal autonomy or independent public schools improve student outcomes – no, not even in WA (as two different fact-checkers recently revealed).

Victoria has had one of the most devolved (or autonomous) public school systems in the world for two decades while NSW has one of the most centralised. Student outcomes in those two states are not very different.

What Pyne also isn't saying is that parental engagement favours already advantaged students. Think about it, no child is disadvantaged through any of their own doing. They are disadvantaged because their parents have been less able to negotiate society successfully compared to an advantaged child's parents. If you hand over educational responsibility predominantly to parents (the LNP's ultimate aim, I suspect) you can only entrench generational advantage and disadvantage.

The very opposite, ironically, of what education is supposed to do.

To sum up, there are three simple reasons why Gonski is the right funding system for Australia's future.

1. The money follows real, evidenced based need. It goes where it will do the most good. There has been much waste in education spending in Australia, but the waste is at the top of the system because dollars are being spent on already advantaged kids for no discernible return. Targeting the funding to the kids who will benefit from it, isn't just fair, its fiscally responsible. 2. It is a truly sector blind Commonwealth funding scheme. The money follows student need regardless of ownership of school. 3. It is simple and easy to understand - I was able to explain it in 100 words, after all. Why, if he tried a little harder, I reckon even Christopher Pyne could get his head around it.

Jane Caro is a writer, commentator and lecturer. View her full profile here.