aeu197_investing_in_schools_report_

Investing in Schools – Funding the Future

Adam Rorris

2009-18

Contents

Executive Summary

4

Investing In Australian Schools – How Much, Where And For Who?

30

Investing In Schools – Funding The Future

12

Total capital investment in Australian schools

30

12

Enormous disparity in capital investment between public and private schools

31

16

National per student investment between sectors

33

Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

35

The Capital Investment Gap

37

State/territory comparisons in capital spending for public schools

42

Investing in schools for the sake of learning School facilities and impact on student performance – international evidence

2

Indicative long term economic gains from better learning outcomes

20

Indicative economic impact of capital investment in schools

24

Capital investment as economic stimulus is only way forward

26

Investment In Australian Public Schools – Recent Announcements, Policy Directions and Recommendations

Attachment A – State And Territory Profiles

46

50

NSW 50

Background 46

Victoria 54

NSW 46

Queensland 58

Victoria 46

South Australia

63

Queensland 47

Western Australia

66

South Australia

47

Tasmania 70

Western Australia

47

Australian Capital Territory

74

Northern Territory

78

References

82

Tasmania 47 Northern Territory

48

ACT 48 Recommendations for justice and equity of investment

49

Data Source and analysis The report is based on the analysis of financial and non-financial data provided by the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) to the AEU. The data was disaggregated to the individual school level. The analysis utilised the variables (i) state, (ii) school sector, (iii) school type, (iv) FTE enrolments and (v) total capital expenditure. Per student sector averages for each year were derived utilising FTE and expenditure data obtained from ACARA source. These are state averages for each year, and not the average of average school level data.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

3

Executive Summary Investing in Schools – Funding the Future Public schools in Australia enrol the majority of all students and an even greater majority of students from low socio-economic backgrounds (SES). A proper needs based funding model would deliver greater investment to public schools (than for private schools) to help them do the heavier lifting for the learning they are expected to deliver (to higher proportion of students with greater needs). In fact, this study reveals the exact opposite to be true.

Investing in schools for the sake of learning – what international research tells us There is extensive international research identifying the positive impact on school participation and learning outcomes through investment in school facilities. The study refers to significant research in the UK, USA and Europe which identify and estimate these impacts. Evidence from the UK shows that capital investment in schools can deliver improvements in student performance and that is most likely to be achieved where investments are directly related to the teaching of the curriculum. Schools in poorer communities are likely to have more use of facilities, and more generally there is less chance of displacement, or inequity with such investments.

More than $5 Billion in annual economic benefits from capital investment in schools Drawing on OECD research, this study finds capital investment in the poorest Australian public schools (accompanied by targeted increases in recurrent spending for studentsat risk of not attaining minimum learning

4

outcomes) could help generate approximately $5.2 billion every year over more than 80 years. The indicative size of the additional annual investment is $3.8 billion per annum.

This means, more than $100 billion in economic benefits could be generated within 20 years. This would be achieved solely through the improved learning of those currently not attaining minimum learning outcomes in the poorest quintile SES schools.

Capital investment as economic stimulus is only way forward Many economists have been calling on all governments in Australia to accelerate their capital investment programs as a way of stimulating the economy and to lay the foundations for future economic growth. The Deloitte consulting agency is just one example of mainstream and conservative economic analysts proposing government engage an aggressive capital spend program to deliver growth and promote future economic development. Drawing on analysis from ABS data, a school capital investment program of approximately $3.8 billion recommended by this report, will likely sustain more than 37,000 additional jobs every year in the construction industry.

Mind the $21.5 billion gap Investment in Australian schools has favoured private schools to an astonishing degree.

Private schools have received investment in school facilities that is at least twice as much received by public schools per student in any given year (outside of the BER program years) and even as high as nearly four times in one year. This means for every dollar invested per child in a private school, a public school child would get somewhere between 27 cents and 50 cents. The Ratio of Inequity (ROI) in spending between sectors is so high, it is more a ratio of shame than inequity. Based on this calculation of inequity, public schools were collectively deprived of $21.5 billion in school investment for the first six years the coalition was in power (2013–18).

All states and the NT are short changing public schools in capital investment The cumulative capital investment gap over the 10 year period (2009–18) exceeds $8,000 per student for all jurisdictions except the ACT. The states of NSW, Victoria and QLD account for approximately 80% of the capital investment gap (CIG) over 10 years.

Recommendations for justice and equity of investment Recommendation 1.

Minimum per student investment should match private schools. State and territory governments commit a minimum capital investment per student in public schools that matches the average per student investment of all private schools. An additional annual national investment of $3.8 billion will deliver for public school students across Australia the same per student investment in their schools as enjoyed by students in private schools. This will deliver a minimum equity funding position for public schools so that students within public care are not disadvantaged relative to private school institutions.

Recommendation 2.

Cease capital support for private schools.

State and territory governments cease to make any contributions to capital investment within the private school sector. Divert to the public sector any existing capital grants, interest subsidy programs and any other forms of capital investment assistance currently provided to the private school sector. This will be the first instalment to help deliver Recommendation1 (above).

Recommendation 3.

School communities (teachers, students, parents and community members using schools) coordinate to identify critical gaps such as examples of schools with large number of demountables, schools in hot areas with no air con etc. and other glaring capacity of maintenance needs. These infrastructure gaps within each state/territory jurisdiction would highlight the extent of the longstanding problem with deficient capital investment in school facilities.

Recommendation 4.

Modern monitoring and reporting systems engaged all in schools. State and territory departments of education should put in place digital solutions that can be accessed via mobile apps. These can quickly engage the school users and draw quick attention to problems. The effective management and monitoring of public school capital investments can only reliably happen with the engagement of its primary users – students, teachers, parents and the other community users.

Recommendation 5.

Establish School Facilities Board at regional and state levels. The decades long neglect of Australian public schools has been facilitated by the effective absence of accountability towards the community members that need and use these facilities. Bureaucratic systems prevent this neglect from being communicated and thereby block demands for effective and efficient investment in schools. The democratic participation of teachers, parents and students in the oversight of school facilities can give voice to reasonable demands for justice and equity across all school systems.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

5

Key Findings Investing in schools for the sake of learning

Indicative economic impact of capital investment in schools

There is extensive international research identifying the positive impact on school participation and learning outcomes through investment in school facilities. The study refers to significant research in the UK, USA and Europe which identify and estimate these impacts.

Drawing on OECD research, capital investment in the poorest Australian public schools (accompanied by targeted increases in recurrent spending for students-at risk of not attaining minimum learning outcomes) could help generate approximately $5.2 billion every year over more than 80 years.

The indicative size of the additional annual investment is $3.8 billion per annum.

This is the gap between current per student investment for private schools and an equivalent per student investment in public schools.

Key Finding 1.

Evidence from the UK shows that capital investment in schools can deliver improvements in student performance and that is most likely to be achieved where investments are directly related to the teaching of the curriculum. Schools in poorer communities are likely to have more use of facilities, and more generally there is less chance of displacement, or inequity with such investments.

Key Finding 2.

Evidence from the USA suggests school facilities affect learning. It simply requires adequate funding and competent design, construction, and maintenance.

Key Finding 3.

There is significant international research showing that factors such as natural and artificial lighting, air quality and temperature, acoustics, and furniture as well as the quality of building and other factors have significant causal links to outcomes associated with student behaviour, learning and well-being.

6

Key Finding 4.

More than $100 billion in economic benefits could be generated within 20 years.

This would be achieved solely through the improved learning of those not attaining minimum learning outcomes in the poorest quintile SES schools, if enrolment/completion of secondary school became universal and all students met the minimum learning benchmarks in mathematics. Additional gains, could also be attained with capital improvements in other schools, but these have not been estimated as part of this study.

Capital investment as economic stimulus is only way forward Many economists have been calling on all governments in Australia to accelerate their capital investment programs as a way of stimulating the economy and to lay the foundations for future economic growth. The Deloitte consulting agency is just one example of mainstream and conservative economic analysts proposing government engage an aggressive capital spend program to deliver growth and promote future economic development. Schools are ready made sites for investment and as shown in this report, deliver very high long-run returns that cannot be delivered by the private market.

Key Finding 5.

Key Finding 6.

The capital investment program of approximately $3.8 billion recommended by this report, will sustain more than 37,000 additional jobs every year in the construction industry. This is based ABS data for the construction industry average investment cost per job.

Improving existing public assets that are distributed nationally with reach into urban, rural, remote and the poorest communities is a scalable and effective means for generating short term stimulus. Public schools are in urgent need of modernisation and can benefit from significant public investment while yield long-term economic benefits.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

7

Investing in Australian schools – how much, where and for who?

Investment in Australian schools has favoured private schools to an astonishing degree.

In absolute terms and in expenditure per student, public schools come a very distant last to the investment enjoyed by the private sector. All years before and after BER program, have shown a ratio of inequity stretching from a best case scenario of 2.1 to as high as 3.7. This means that private schools have received investment in school facilities that is at least twice as much received by public schools per student in any given year, and even as high as nearly four times in one year. The Ratio of Inequity (ROI) in spending between sectors is so high, it is more a ratio of shame than inequity. Based on this calculation of inequity, public schools were deprived of $21.5 billion in school investment for the first five years the coalition was in power (2013–18).

Total capital investment

Enormous disparity in capital investment between public and private schools

Key Finding 7.

Annual capital investment in Australian schools over the ten year period 2009–18 has varied from around $4.1 billion to $11.85 billion.

Two features dominate the pattern of capital investment in Australian schooling; (i) P rivate schools have greater total capital investment 7 years out of 10 even though they have approximately half the enrolments, and (ii) T he three years where public schools had more funds invested in capital than private schools was during the Building Education Revolution (BER) period when the Commonwealth government invested in schools as part of its fiscal stimulus program to deal with the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).

Key Finding 8.

The pre-BER period is the year 2009.

Pre-BER, private schools were investing an aggregate 10% more than public schools in capital ($3.2 billion vs $2.9 billion).

Key Finding 9.

The BER period is unique because it provides public schools with greater capital investment than private schools. During the BER-period (2010–12), public schools ($15.1 billion) outstripped private schools ($10.8 billion) in total capital investment.

Key Finding 10.

The Post-BER period (2013–18) sees a return to the old ways leaving public schools far poorer in investment ($11.4 billion) compared to private schools ($17.4 billion).

8

National per student figures reveal the true gap between sectors

Key Finding 11.

On a per student basis, private schools enjoy greater investment every single year over the 10 years examined by this study.

Key Finding 12.

The difference in capital funding varies from approximately $1,700 per student in 2017 to $394 in 2011.

Key Finding 13.

The smallest gap in per student funding between private and public schools is found during the BER period when it was less than $500 per student in 2011 and 2012.

Key Finding 14.

From the end of BER funding, the gap in capital funding per student has increased beyond $1,000 for every year.

Ratio of Inequity (ROI) The Ratio of Inequity (ROI) presents private school capital investment per student as a multiple of public school capital investment per student. It gauges the extent of the imbalance in capital investment between school sectors. For example, a value of 2 means that private schools have invested double the amount per student of public schools.

Key Finding 15.

Nationally, the ROI has been above ‘2’ for every year except for the three BER years of investment in public schools. All years before and after BER program, have shown a ratio of inequity stretching from a best case scenario of 2.1 to as high as 3.7. Every year studied, per student capital investment in private schools is at least double that in public schools and even up to 4 times greater.

The ROI of capital investment between private and public schools is so extreme it is more a ratio of shame than inequity. It frames the signal failure of public policy to provide any semblance of balance in the provision of facilities across school sectors.

Key Finding 16.

The significance of the capital imbalance captured by the ROI is heightened because(i) a majority of all students are in public schools, and (ii) s tudents from poorer backgrounds are far more likely to be found in public schools. These students have less chance for resource deficiencies at the school level to be offset by household access to resources and support.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

9

The Annual Capital Investment Gap

Key Finding 17.

The average annual Capital Investment Gap per student has remained fairly consistent between the Pre-BER period ($1409) and the Post-BER period ($1466).

The BER period improved the situation, but even during this period public schools were under-invested by more than $750 a student every year.

Key Finding 18.

The per student cumulative impact of the Capital Gap across years is substantial.

Over 10 years, the capital gap in funding between private schools and public schools is more than $12,450 per student.

In the post-BER period (2013–18), public schools received in total nearly $8,800 less per student for capital investment than private schools.

Key Finding 19.

The average annual Capital Investment Gap has been greatest in the post-BER years ($3.8 billion). This exceeds the $3.1 billion pre-BER (2009) and more than double the CIG during BER period when there was a gap of $1.7 billion.

Key Finding 20.

During the 10 year period 2009–18 the cumulative Capital Investment Gap between private and public sectors was $29.6 billion. This is the value of investment that was deprived from public schools if they had received the equivalent per student investment in their schools as for private schools.

10

The Cumulative Capital Investment Gap Public schools were deprived of $21.5 billion in capital works in the first six years the coalition was in power. This is the additional investment they would have received for school facilities, equipment and in buildings if funded at the same rate as private schools.

Key Finding 21.

During the post-BER period (2013–18) the cumulative Capital Investment Gap between private and public sectors was $21.5 billion.

This is the value of investment that was deprived from public schools if they had received the equivalent per student investment in their schools as for private schools.

Key Finding 22.

During the BER period (2010–12) public schools fared better, however the cumulative Capital Investment Gap between private and public sectors still exceeded $5 billion.

This is the value of investment that was deprived from public schools if they had received the equivalent per student investment in their schools as for private schools.

State/territory comparisons in capital spending for public schools The cumulative capital investment gap over the 10 year period (2009–18) exceeds $8,000 per student for all jurisdictions except the ACT.

Key Finding 23.

Key Finding 25.

Capital investment per student over 10 years across public systems varies from an annual average of just over $1,000 in Tasmania to as high as $2,141 in the ACT. The average annual expenditure in the post-BER period (2013–18) collapses across all jurisdictions with Tasmania, South Australia and NSW having the lowest levels ($500, $572, $610).

The cumulative capital investment gap over the 10 year period (2009–18) exceeds $8,000 per student for all jurisdictions except the ACT.

Key Finding 24.

Public schools in all states and territories have under-investment compared to their private school counterparts. NSW, Victoria and QLD have the largest share of the capital investment gap (CIG) over all 10 years and for the post-BER period (approximately 80% for both).

Key Finding 26.

The imbalance in capital investment between private and public sectors is at critical levels across most years for all jurisdictions except ACT and WA. The majority of years where the Ratio of Inequity (ROI) was at less than critical levels, was during the BER period (2010–12).

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

11

Investing in Schools – Funding the Future

Before turning to an examination of school investment in Australia, this study looks at evidence for the impact of capital investment in schools. The first part looks at international evidence of the potential positive impact of capital investment on schooling outcomes.

The second part looks at the potential economic impact of capital investment.

The broader economic impact is seen through (i) improvements in learning that deliver long term economic benefit, and (ii) immediate fiscal stimulus during a time of economic crisis with high unemployment.

Investing in schools for the sake of learning Extensive research has been undertaken to examine the impact of capital investment on the quality of schooling. The summary of findings from reports during the past 20 years is presented below.

In the UK, a report entitled Building Performance was published in 2000 by the DfES Research Report series. This presented the findings from a major study commissioned by the DfES, and undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) during 1999.

The study provided qualitative evidence and some quantitative evidence to support the view that a positive and significant association existed between schools capital investment

12

and student performance. The final database contained information on more than 900 schools. Some of the key findings of the study are presented below.

The key quantitative findings of the report Building Performance are: • additional evidence showing a positive and statistically significant association between capital investment and student performance.

• The most significant evidence, from a statistical point of view, is in relation to community primary schools.

• the strongest positive findings are in relation to measures of investment which can be related directly to the teaching of the curriculum (e.g. ICT-related capital spending, science blocks etc, referred to by the United Kingdom’s Department for Children, Schools and Families (DfES) as ‘suitability’ investment).

The key qualitative findings from the Building Performance research report are: • Schools which were located in areas of high economic and social deprivation tended, on average, to be used more by the wider community. This was partly related to the fact that many of these areas were relatively under-provisioned, in terms of alternative resources, and so the school effectively acted as a key public resource within the community. Related to this, schools tend to be ‘local’, which benefited those from poorer backgrounds, many of whom would be reliant on paying for public transport to attend alternative locations; • The main demand for school facilities was in terms of specialist facilities (e.g. ICT suites, early years facilities), auditoria (e.g. for use by drama groups and other local clubs / societies etc) and sports facilities (e.g. outdoor and indoor pitches, swimming pool etc); • Good examples of schools entering into mutually beneficial partnership arrangements with other stakeholders (e.g. the school being used as a local ‘outreach centre’ by Further Education colleges or local health authorities).

The evidence suggests that the broader community benefits of the use of school facilities are enhanced, when they are underpinned by effective inter-agency partnership arrangements; • I n relation to the broader benefits, schools capital investment is likely to be characterised by relatively low levels of deadweight, displacement, substitution and inequity. The qualitative evidence suggests that this is particularly the case in relatively deprived areas, and likely to be less so in more prosperous areas.

• I mprovements in the physical fabric of school buildings can help to enhance student performance, e.g. ‘suitability’ related projects such as science laboratories, ICT suites, improving teaching and learning in technology-related subjects, and ‘condition’related projects such as improvements to roofs and windows improving teacher and student morale; and •C apital investment on its own is not necessarily enough and rather, student performance is impacted on by a wide range of contextual factors relating to students’ overall ‘learning environment’.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

13

01 Evidence from the UK shows that capital investment in schools KEY FINDING 1

can deliver improvements in student performance and that is most likely to be achieved where investments are directly related to the teaching of the curriculum. School in poorer communities are likely to have more use of facilities, and more generally there is less chance of displacement, or inequity with such investments. (more than $6,000) and in QLD (more than $2,000 per student).

In the USA, the most extensive research conducted by the Education Commission of the States has found that: …there is a clear and growing evidence of the need to fundamentally rethink the planning, design and use of school facilities in a way that reflects changing educational demands and needs; takes greater advantage of new technologies and new insights into the nature of teaching and learning; and, perhaps most important, forges stronger bonds between schools and the communities they serve. (www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/68/78/6878.pdf) Also from the USA, Schneider (2002) has reviewed the international body of research on the subject. His findings include the following: • Building age is an amorphous concept and should not itself be used as an indicator of a facility’s impact on student performance.

Many schools built as civic monuments in the 1920s and 1930s still provide, with some modernization, excellent learning environments; many newer schools built in the cost-conscious 1960s and 1970s do not.

14

• Decisions about school facilities, once translated into brick-and-mortar, affect the daily performance of the generations of teachers and students who use them. These decisions are based on tradition, available technology, experience with “what works,” and the changing needs of the times. Good facilities research allows us to productively sort through this mix and can help produce long-term, positive effects on academic outcomes.

His study concludes that: • School facilities affect learning. Spatial configurations, noise, heat, cold, light, and air quality obviously bear on students’ and teachers’ ability to perform. Empirical studies will continue, focusing on fine-tuning the acceptable ranges of these variables for optimal academic outcomes. But we already know what is needed: clean air, good light, and a quiet, comfortable, and safe learning environment. This can be and generally has been achieved within the limits of existing knowledge, technology, and materials. It simply requires adequate funding and competent design, construction, and maintenance.

Elsewhere, Schneider (2003) has studied the effect of school facilities on teachers.

He finds many teachers reporting that: …conditions in their schools affected their career decisions. Among teachers who graded their facilities with a C or below, more than 40 percent said that poor conditions have led them to consider changing schools and 30 percent are thinking about leaving teaching.

The numbers are even higher for teachers who have experienced health effects related to poor facilities: about 50 percent of Chicago teachers and 65 percent of Washington teachers are considering changing schools, and about 40 percent of Chicago and Washington teachers are thinking about leaving the profession entirely.

Educational facilities expert Jeff Lackney summarizes current and emerging thinking on issues ranging from site and building organization to lighting, acoustics, ventilation, furniture and technology.

Lackney says schools must be both learner-centered and community-centered.

That means making more versatile, creative and productive use of school facilities – in close collaboration with parents, neighborhood residents and community partners, and with the needs and interests of not just students, but learners of all ages, in mind. This requires rethinking schools

from the inside out – beginning with the use of instructional space. He categorises the self-contained classroom as obsolete.

This should be replaced by “instructional clusters” that facilitate both shared and personalized learning, and that take advantage of, rather than marginalize, new technologies. Each cluster would consist of individual “learning alcoves” surrounding a central core of resources and support – informal meeting areas, seminar and conference rooms, storage space, a computer hub and teacher offices. Lackney also suggests: •D ecentralizing administrative space, and providing every teacher with a private or semi-private office •C reating diverse settings and spaces for transitions between spaces for learning and interaction – from enclosed “backyards” that can be used for gardening, reading and play, to “privacy niches” that can be used for counselling sessions and impromptu meetings, to “activity pockets” for smallgroup learning activities •P roviding space for community activities, programs and services ranging from public meetings to childcare to job training and adult education and enrichment.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

15

02 Evidence from the USA suggests school facilities affect learning.

KEY FINDING 2

Improvements for better learning require adequate funding and competent design, construction, and maintenance.

School facilities and impact on student performance – international evidence Ken Fisher has summarised findings from a wide range of research that examines causal links between student achievement and behaviour on the one hand, and the overall condition of school buildings on the other. (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455672. pdf). …in a study of all of the primary schools in Georgia in the United States, fourth grade students in non-modernised buildings recorded poorer results in basic skills assessment than those in modernised or new buildings.’ Similarly eighth grade students scored consistently higher (7-8% higher scores) in mathematics, ‘composite’ and vocabulary assessment if accommodated in new or modernised buildings.’

This was repeated in a study of 30 elementary schools where teacher attitudes to school buildings were significantly improved in new and modernised buildings. A further study demonstrated an improvement in student achievement scores in newer facilities especially in sixth grade mathematics.’ 4 Seven studies demonstrated that building age is a significant contributor to student achievement and behaviour.’

16

In an examination of 280 fourth and sixth grade students in two separate facilities (old and new), those in the newer buildings performed much better than the students in the older buildings, achieving scores over 7% higher. The students in the modern buildings also had a better record in the areas of health, attendance and discipline. The study concluded that approximately 3% of the variance in achievement scores can be explained by the age of the facility after taking into account socio-economic differences in the student populations.’ However, there is not total agreement on all of these findings. For example, in one study a strong inverse relationship was found between student behaviour and building age, that is, the older the buildings were, the better the behaviour of the students.’ It has been speculated that this conflicting finding may be the result of negative student reaction to greater supervision and disciplinary measures in the newer facilities. It is important to note that, as buildings age, the individual building elements, such as lighting, air-conditioning and floor-coverings, vary in life expectancy and levels of maintenance. Thus different elements will impact on learning and behaviour differentially.

Four recent replicated studies have identified a relationship between cosmetic factors (related to age, maintenance and condition) and student performance and behaviour, with student achievement scores improving by as much as 5% in schools of higher condition ratings.’ Schools were rated by teachers as sub-standard, standard or above standard.

Fisher also looks at individual building elements and their relationship to student outcomes and behaviour. Some of his findings are presented below: Natural and Artificial Lighting It is generally accepted that good lighting, both natural and artificial, can contribute to the aesthetic and psychological character of a learning space. Studies confirm that, for fifth and sixth grade students, appropriately designed and well-maintained lighting improves students’ achievement scores.

Medical studies have shown that natural light is critical to the regulation of the circadian rhythm of the body in adjusting to night and day conditions and therefore of vital importance where students are inside classrooms for much of the day. There is, however, no evidence in the educational literature that this effect has been measured in terms of academic or behavioural outcomes.

One educational facilities research organisation recommends that 20% of wall space be allocated to windows located so students can see out from a seated position.

Air Quality and Temperature The overwhelming weight of evidence supports a relation between the thermal environment and academic achievement and student behaviours. Temperatures in excess of 25°C have detrimental physiological effects which, in turn, decrease mental efficiency, work outputs and performance.

Above this temperature, and with poor humidification, respiration rates are increased, physical efforts become more demanding,

attention spans decrease and students report more discomfort. There is also increased absenteeism and conditions favourable to disease and infection spread amongst students. Student achievement is further reduced by poor ventilation, lack of air movement and poor humidity control.

Much of the research on this was done before standardised testing was available as a measuring tool.

However, students in appropriately controlled environments were observed to make significantly fewer errors on tasks and required less time on tasks than students in uncontrolled environments. In Australia, environmentally sustainable design (ESD) approaches are increasingly being used for thermal control by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects which publishes guidelines for building planners and designers.

Acoustics The impact of excessive noise in learning settings on learning outcomes has been extensively researched over many decades.

Noise emanates from other classrooms, road traffic, trains, aircraft and building mechanical systems. It is clear that inordinate noise levels influence stress, verbal interaction, reading comprehension, blood pressure, cognitive task success, feelings of helplessness, inability to concentrate and lack of extended application to learning tasks. Whilst it was evident that the open-plan classrooms of the 1970s in Australia suffered from noise, more recent designs of large teaching/ studio spaces use baffling devices to minimise noise

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

17

transmission. Studies of noise attenuation, particularly the use of carpet with its inherent sound absorbent qualities, have indicated improved student achievement levels although quantitative measurement is not evident in the studies. Design implications include the increasing use of carpet on floors, acoustic ceiling tiles, softer wall finishes (including artworks), softer upholstery, better sound isolation in and above adjoining walls between classrooms and sound baffles in larger spaces such as lecture and drama auditoria. None of the research studies measured the impact of acoustics on student assessment scores although medical and occupational health, safety and welfare studies have clearly established criteria for acceptable levels of noise in the workplace.

Furniture UNESCO’s Educational Building and Furniture Programme has been engaged for many years in extensive empirical project based work in developing countries. UNESCO reports that uncomfortable and unsuitable furniture causes problems including backache, poor concentration spans and writing difficulties, thus reducing learning opportunities. There is a general body of work on ergonomics that support these conclusions. These fundamental principles are clearly also applicable to the developed world, although it appears that no specific research studies have attempted to measure the impact.

18

Other Factors A range of other building design factors and elements are currently under investigation to determine possible relationships between these factors and student behaviour and academic outcomes. The factors include the amount of space allocated per student, the openness of space, the use of underground or windowless facilities, site size, building utilisation and room occupancy rates, the range of support facilities (including storage) and the availability of specialist instructional facilities. The replication, validity and reliability of the research methodologies and ‘scientific’ rigor in these studies is still evolving.

Studies on science laboratories indicate strong causal links between the quality and amount of science equipment and furniture design on the one hand and the quality of student behaviour and learning outcomes on the other. A difference of 7% in science scores occurred between schools rated low and high in overall science facility quality. Libraries have recently been undergoing extensive design remodelling and rethinking to accommodate the increasing use of Internet access, multimedia and other new technologies. Student behaviour appears to be particularly sensitive in libraries, as students work independently outside formal classrooms on individual project and problem-based curriculum requirements or on group projects.

European studies confirm that the aesthetic appearance of a school can convey subtle messages that act as perceptual constraining factors for both staff and students. School architecture can facilitate the transmission of cultural values, stimulate or subdue, aid in creativity, slow mental perception and cause fear and joy.” The emergence of new understandings of contextually and socially based cognition is shaping this research.

A six-year study at the University of Goettingen determined that student perceptions of, and behaviour in, learning environments are influenced by the scale of the buildings and the variety and stimulating potential of structural shapes and colour schemes.3° These patterns were measured qualitatively and statistical results are therefore not available. Studies of eye movements, as students viewed their learning environment, saw them compensating for angular designs resulting in a degree of discomfort and imbalance which, in turn, affected their concentration span and reduced their ‘time-on-task’. Other factors impacting on students include transitional spaces (indoor/outdoor), the anthropological and social aspects of design, sensory stimulation, context, schools-within-schools, harmony, the incidence of views and vistas, functional zones, circulation patterns and supervisable circulation spaces (such as hallways and corridors).

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

19

03 There is significant international research showing that KEY FINDING 3

factors such as natural and artificial lighting, air quality and temperature, acoustics, and furniture as well as the quality of building and other factors have significant causal links to outcomes associated with student behaviour, learning and well-being. These variables impact differently on learning, and based on one study, can explain up to 3% of variance in learning achievement.

Indicative long term economic gains from better learning outcomes It is not possible within this study to generate precise estimates of the economic impact of better school facilities. From recent significant international research, it is possible to quantify the likely scale of the impact over the longer term. A major OECD study covering 76 countries (OECD 2015) projects the economic impact of achieving universal basic skills over a 15-year period ending in 2030.

It shows how over time, the knowledge capital of the nation improves as better-educated youth enter the labour force. This report is of particular interest because it is most recent, but also in its consistent coverage of so many countries using similar methodology and the comparable PISA test performance database.

20

OECD Study Approach The OECD study builds on earlier research (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2015) showing that growth is directly and significantly related to the skills of the population.

Skills are measured by the aggregate test scores on international mathematics and science tests. The conclusion is that a population’s knowledge capital, or collective cognitive skills, is by far the most important determinant of a country’s economic growth.

The OECD study illustrates the relationship between skills and long-run economic growth by plotting annual growth in real per capita GDP between 1960 and 2000 against average test scores (after allowing for differences in initial per capita GDP) and initial average years of schooling. The study finds that countries align closely along the regression line that depicts a positive association between cognitive skills and economic growth.

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris FIGURE 1. along the regression line that depicts a positive association between cognitive skills and economic growth.

Knowledge Capital And Economic Growth Rates AcrossKnowledge Countries Figure 1.

Capital And Economic Growth Rates Across Countries Singapore

6.0

Chinese Taipei Italy Ireland Egypt Canada Switzerland Denmark Cyprus* Tunisia United States Indonesia Morocco Australia Norway Greece Brazil

5.0

4.0

3.0

Mexico

2.0 South Africa 1.0

Chile Argentina

Israel* Colombia

Ghana

Iceland Spain

Uru guay

Zimbabwe

New Zealand

Korea

Thailand

Portugal

United Kingdom

Romania Peru

Hong Kong (China)

Malaysia

China (Peop le’s Republic of)

Finland France Iran Belgium Indi a Netherlands Austria Sweden Turkey Japan

Jordan

Philippines 0.0

Source: OECD 2015 Source: OECD 2015

The OECD study builds on the finding that improved knowledge capital increases economic The OECD study builds on the finding that This level of skills corresponds to what might growth and reasons that in order to engender inclusive and sustainable growth, any goal must improved knowledge capital increases today be called modern functional literacy. relate directly to populations’ skills. Therefore, relevant education and development goals economic growth in and reasons that in order should be phrased terms of student achievement levels that are consistent with the skills Based on that framework, a clear and to engender inclusive and sustainable required by the workforce in the future.growth, measurable development goal is that all youth any goal must relate directly to populations’ Theskills. study measures skills based on the of youth international assessments acquire basicon skills.

This goal, which directly of Therefore, relevant education andachievement learning outcomes.

Using data from 76 countries, it focuses on the portion of the population promotes inclusive development, incorporates development goals should be phrased in that lacks the basic skills needed for full participation in today’s global economy. The adopted two components: terms of student achievement levels that definition of basic skills is the acquisition of at least Level 1 skills (420 points) on the OECD are consistent with the skills required by • f ull enrolment of youth in secondary school, Programme for International (PISA). This level of skills corresponds to the workforce in the future. Student Assessment and what might today be called modern functional literacy.

• s ufficient achievement for economic and The on study measures skillsabased the Based that framework, clear on and measurable development goal is that all youth acquire social participation. achievement of youth international basic skills. This goal, on which directly promotes inclusive development, incorporates two assessments of learning outcomes. Using data components: By measuring progress on a consistent basis from 76 countries, it focuses on the portion across countries, this goal can be used to enrolment youth inbasic secondary of• thefull population thatoflacks the skills school, and direct attention and resources toward • sufficient achievementinfor economic needed for full participation today’s globaland social participation. sustained economic development. economy. The adopted definition of basic skills By measuring progress on a consistent basis across countries, this goal can be used to direct is the acquisition of at least Level 1 skills attention and resources toward sustained economic development.

(420 points) on the OECD Programme for Global Findings of OECD Study (PISA).

International Student Assessment • Over time, the knowledge capital of the nation improves as better-educated youth enter the labour force.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

14

21

Global Findings of OECD Study • Over time, the knowledge capital of the nation improves as better-educated youth enter the labour force.

• The more skilled workforce leads to increased economic growth and other positive social outcomes.

• The economic value of the policy change is calculated as the difference between the GDP expected with the current workforce and the GDP expected with the improved workforce, calculated over the expected lifetime of a child born today.

• On average, these countries would see a 3.5% higher discounted average GDP over the next 80 years.

• This is almost exactly the average percentage of GDP higher income countries devote to public primary and secondary school expenditure.

22

• The economic gains from solely eliminating extreme under performance in high-income OECD countries would be sufficient to pay for all schooling.

• A great strength of the universal basic skills goal is the contribution it would make to inclusive growth. Within each country, the variation in earnings currently observed would shrink, and many more individuals would be able to engage productively in the labour market.

• No substitute for improved skills has yet been identified that offers similar possibilities of facilitating the inclusive growth needed to address the full range of development goals.

OECD Findings – Specific to Australia The specific findings from this OECD report for Australia are presented below. Values in US Dollars have been converted to Australian Dollars.

The OECD findings show extremely strong results accruing to the Australian economy from improvements in learning and skills. For example, if there was universal enrolment in secondary school and every student acquired the basic skills specified for 15 year olds (PISA Level 1, Mathematics) then the following results would be anticipated: • An average additional $26 billion in economic benefits each year until 2095 by investing so that every child acquires basic skills by the age of 15 years old.

• The aggregate future economic benefit (discounted for inflation) generated by improved skills until 2095 will be AUD 2.25 trillion. This total economic benefit is the value of 114% of the current GDP of the whole of Australia.

FIGURE 2.

Benefits Accruing from – Universal Enrolment in Secondary School and Every Student Acquiring Basic Skills OECD ESTIMATES OF OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFITS

VALUE (AUD CURRENT PRICES)

Annual Economic Benefit (start 12 years after first investment)

26 Billion AUD*

Economic Value Generated to 2095

2.25 Trillion AUD*

Value as a Proportion of Current of GDP (%)

114%

Source: OECD (2015) Chapter 5 pge 63. * 2015 prices and conversion from USD presented in OECD report based on (i) foreign exchange rate AUD = 0.72USD, and ii) 2020 prices adjusted at cumulative 7.8% CPI adjustment for period 2015-2020,

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

23

Indicative economic impact of capital investment in schools Drawing on the OECD research, it is possible to generate indicative estimates of the impact of capital investing in schools (buildings, facilities and equipment). The OECD estimates of benefits from improved schooling are based on improving the participation and learning outcomes that do not meet minimum learning outcomes. In Australia, those students are most heavily concentrated in disadvantaged public schools. This is the effect of many factors including price exclusion from private schools, spatial location (for rural and remote communities) and the acceptance of public schools of all local students. Investment in public schools (and in particular those in disadvantaged communities) will be the most efficient in reaching students that currently fall below minimum learning benchmarks.

FIGURE 3.

Indicative Estimate of Benefits from Capital Improvement STUDY ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM CAPITAL INVESTMENT

VALUE (AUD 2020 CURRENT PRICES)

Annual Economic Benefit from Capital Investment

5.2 Billion AUD**

Economic Value Generated 2015-2095

0.42 Trillion AUD**

Value as a Proportion of Current of GDP (%)

23%**

** Values based on (i) foreign exchange rate AUD = 0.72USD, (ii) 2020 prices at cumulative 7.8% CPI adjustment for period 2015-2020, (iii) 20% contribution of capital improvements in schools (buildings, facilities, equipment) to the attainment of universal secondary enrolment/retention and every student acquiring basic skills

What is the contribution of capital investment to improved learning outcomes? A cautious and conservative approach would be to suggest that in the case of lowest performing students, the impact might account for 20% of the improvement. This is on the basis that the schools serving the most deprived communities (lowest SES quintile) are also the ones that typically have access to some of the poorest buildings, facilities and equipment.

They are far more likely to benefit from capital investment than the private system where wealthy schools already have buildings and facilities that are far more elaborate and well resourced.

24

If the total annual economic benefit of raising learning outcomes for the weakest performing students so that they met minimum learning outcomes is approximately $26 billion, then capital investment in the poorest public schools could generate approximately $5.2 billion every year over more than 80 years.

This would be solely through the improved learning of these weaker students.

04 Additional benefits from capital investment could also be KEY FINDING 4

derived from investment in other schools that are not based in the most economically deprived areas. These could also be substantial with the OECD estimating in the case of Australia, that were PISA marks to be increased by more than 25 points in Mathematics, that could generate annual economic benefits in excess of $70 billion (2020 current value). This contribution of capital investment to these annual economic benefits of $70 billion is much harder to determine. This study does not attempt to estimate their value as there are too many variables at play to be able to locate the efficient and effective contribution of capital investment to these improved learning outcomes across all schools and systems. Drawing on OECD research, capital investment in the poorest (lowest SES quintile) Australian public schools (accompanied by targeted increases in recurrent spending for students-at risk of not attaining minimum learning outcomes) could help generate approximately $5.2 billion every year over more than 80 years. More than $100 billion in economic benefits could be generated within 20 years. This would be achieved solely through the improved learning of these low performing students if enrolment/completion of secondary school became universal and all students met the minimum learning benchmarks in mathematics. Further and higher gains, could also be attained with capital improvements in other schools, but these have not been estimated as part of this study. The indicative size of the additional annual investment is $3.8 billion per annum.

This is the gap between current per student spending for private schools and an equivalent per student investment in public schools .

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

25

Capital investment as economic stimulus is only way forward Monetary policy through the manipulation of interest rates is now at a dead end. Its use and abuse over more than 20 years has left interest rates at nearly 0% levels. There is simply nowhere else to go with monetary policy as a lever for economic stimulation. This economic reality (captured in the graph below) is now accepted by all governments.

FIGURE 4.

Cash rate target

Source: https://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/cash-rate/

Many economists have been calling on all governments in Australia to accelerate their capital investment programs as a way of stimulating the economy and to lay the foundations for future economic growth. The Deloitte consulting agency is just one example of mainstream and conservative economic analysts proposing government engage an aggressive capital spend program to deliver growth and promote future economic development. The text box on the following page summarises the argument of Deloitte on why capital spending on existing public assets ( such as schools) can deliver a quicker and more effective and fair positive contribution towards the short and long terms benefit for society and economy.

The positive impact on employment and training was demonstrated by the Building the

26

Education Revolution (BER) during the period 2009-12. Under the BER guidelines, the states, territories and block grant authorities were to ensure that projects covered by the BER funding used their best endeavours to give priority in contracting and tendering arrangements to businesses that agree to aim to secure at least 10 percent of the total contract labour hours to be undertaken by apprentices and trainees and those seeking to up-skill, where this does not result in unreasonable costs to business. The BER Implementation Taskforce found that nationally this objective was achieved with apprentices making up 12.7 per cent of total direct employment on BER P21 projects.

Tasmania was a particular standout with all three sectors recording more than 20 per cent of the workforce being apprentices. (BERIT, 2011, Appendix 12).

Estimate of jobs created through $3.8 billion capital investment in schools A broad estimate of the likely number of jobs to be created by a $3.8 billion capital program for schools can be calculated from high level ABS data. By combining data for the average annual investment in the construction industry with total number of jobs that are provided by that industry, a high level estimate is generated of the average investment cost per construction industry job.

The table below presents the calculations for 2020, based on the most recent data (with an attributed average investment cost for the December quarter 2020, as this was not available at time of report writing). There were approximately 1.1 million jobs provided by the construction industry (nearly a million of these are full-time) with an average annual value of investment at $119 billion. The average investment cost per job is just $100,000.

FIGURE 5.

Construction industry – Average Investment Cost per Job, 2020 YEAR 2020,

BY QUARTER

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION JOBS

INVESTMENT $ (BILLION)

INVESTMENT COST PER CONSTRUCTION JOB

March

1,182,900

30.5

$25,784.09

June

1,177,500

29.7

$25,222.93

September

1,151,400

28.8

$25,013.03

December

1,173,500

29.6

$25,223.69

Annual

1,171,325

$119

$101,252.85

Source: Investment $ Billion, ABS Building Activity Investment, and Total Construction Jobs, ABS Table 05: Employed persons by industry division

05 The capital investment program of approximately $3.8 billion KEY FINDING 5

recommended by this report, will sustain more than 37,000 additional jobs every year in the construction industry. This is based ABS data for the construction industry average investment cost per job.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

27

06 Improving existing public assets that are distributed nationally KEY FINDING 6

with reach into urban, rural, remote and the poorest communities is a scalable and effective means for generating short term stimulus. Public schools are in urgent need of modernisation and can benefit from significant public investment that will yield long-term economic benefits.

Accelerated capital spend as an economic stimulus – instead of mega infrastructure • By 30 March, 2020 the cash rate reached an historic all-time low of 0.25%; 25 basis points from zero and little room to move lower.

Furthermore, we have seen the start of quantitative easing from central banks and in fact, the Reserve Bank of Australia has indicated it will implement quantitative easing in Australia for the first time in the country’s history . Policy may also be further impacted by a diminishing appetite for private sector to invest in capital markets.

• Fiscal policy is already stepping in now, particularly at the state level, through massive recurrent budget costs. This recurrent cost will likely have to be funded from borrowing, as tax receipts fall and social welfare payments increase. The key point is that in such an environment, Governments will have to make a conscious decision to

28

protect public sector investment – i.e. as recurrent deficits spiral and debt balloons, there will be a temptation to cut government investment – but this would be short-sighted because of the way that public sector investment has three important stimulus effects. Firstly, it improves the productive capacity of the nation – for example, goods can move more easily, labour is more productive, energy cheaper and more reliable, etc. This is incredibly important to ensure the country recovers as quickly as possible (noting that the country is still recovering from bushfires and floods) and can pay off the debt being built up. Secondly, it provides a significant unemployment buffer in the short term through direct employment and increased demand for the other inputs into infrastructure development. Thirdly, social outcomes are better planned for and achieved by infrastructure spend than monetary policy.

• Whilst the mega projects bring out the benefits outlined above, unless they are live or in the tender phase they are likely to be slower to show positive economic impact.

Perhaps it is time to shift the focus into investing in the existing asset base, improving efficiency, improving resilience and improving broader cross-sector economic impacts through precincts.

Deloitte propose that Australian governments propose instead of large multi-billion dollar infrastructure programs (e.g. roads) that have long planning and development times, governments focus on increasing the spend on asset management and maintenance. Their argument is: • Governments have billions of dollars of assets in both hard assets and built form.

Historically there has been a backlog of maintenance on assets as competing budgetary pressures have favoured new build.

• These are better placed to (i) stimulate the economy through improved efficiency of the existing asset base, (ii) lead to a reduction in operating and repair costs through strategically planed investment, (iii) u tilise a mix of highly skilled and unskilled labour, (iv) h ave procurement processes and requirements met quickly and inexpensively for bidders, (v) support investment to be scaled quickly to meet resource availability, (vi) be targeted at high needs or vulnerable communities e.g. rural areas also impacted by bushfires, and (vii) p rovide a boost to second and third tier contractors who can’t compete on mega projects.

Source: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/ Documents/infrastructure-capital-projects/deloitte-au-icpinfrastructure-accelerated-capital-spend-V5.0.pdf

The wholesale under-investment in public schooling over more than a decade (and even two decades for most jurisdictions – see next section of this report), means that public schools are excellent target sites for the kind of investment being proposed by Deloitte.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

29

Investing in Australian Schools – how much, where and for who?

Total capital investment in Australian schools

07 Annual capital investment in Australian schools over the ten KEY FINDING 7

year period 2009-18 has varied from around $4.1 billion to $11.85 billion. Two features dominate the pattern of capital investment in Australian schooling; (i) Private schools have greater total capital investment 7 years out 10 even though they have approximately half the enrolments, and (ii) The three years where public schools had more funds invested in capital than private schools was during the Building Education Revolution (BER) period when the Commonwealth government invested in schools as part of its fiscal stimulus program to deal with the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).

30

Figure 1.

National Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

FIGURE 6.

National Annual Capital Investment in Schools, National Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

$ MILLIONS

$8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $-$1,000 -$2,000 -$3,000

Figure 2.

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Public Schools

$2,887

$6,678

$5,269

$3,117

$1,823

$1,520

$1,521

$1,443

$1,844

$3,249

All Private Schools

$3,168

$5,162

$3,287

$2,266

$2,316

$2,634

$2,925

$2,842

$3,226

$3,494

Private vs Public

$282

-$1,516

-$1,983

-$851

$492

$1,113

$1,403

$1,400

$1,382

$244

National Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions, by investment period

Enormous disparity in capital investment National Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions, between public and private schools by investment period

The capital investment in Australian schools during the past 10 years is best viewed in three periods –$35,000 Pre-BER, BER period, and Post-BER. This allows us to understand the impact of capital funding policy $30,000across systems. $25,000 $20,000

08 The pre-BER period is the year 2009. Pre-BER, private schools $15,000

KEY FINDING 8

$10,000

$5,000

$were investing an aggregate 10% more than public schools in -$5,000 capital ($3.2 billion vs $2.9 billion).

-$10,000

Pre-BER (2009)

BER Total

Post BER Total

10 Year Total

Public Schools

$2,887

$15,065

$11,401

$29,352

All Private Schools

$3,168

$10,715

$17,435

$31,319

Private vs Public

$282

-$4,350

$6,035

$1,967

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

31

Figure 1.

National Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

09 The BER period is unique

10 The Post-BER period (2013-

KEY FINDING 9 KEY FINDING 10 National Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

$8,000 because it provides public $7,000 schools $6,000 with greater $5,000 capital investment than $4,000 private schools. During $3,000 the $2,000 BER-period (2010-12), $1,000 public$-schools ($15.1 billion) -$1,000 outstripped private schools -$2,000 ($10.8 billion) in total -$3,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 capital investment.

Public Schools $2,887 $6,678 $5,269 $3,117

18) sees a return to the old ways leaving public schools far poorer in investment ($11.4 billion) compared to private schools ($17.4 billion).

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$1,823

$1,520

$1,521

$1,443

$1,844

$3,249

All Private Schools

$3,168

$5,162

$3,287

$2,266

$2,316

$2,634

$2,925

$2,842

$3,226

$3,494

Private vs Public

$282

-$1,516

-$1,983

-$851

$492

$1,113

$1,403

$1,400

$1,382

$244

FIGURE 7.

Figure 2.

National Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions, by investment

National periodAnnual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions National Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions,

by investment period

BY INVESTMENT PERIOD $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $-$5,000 -$10,000

32

Pre-BER (2009)

BER Total

Post BER Total

10 Year Total

Public Schools

$2,887

$15,065

$11,401

$29,352

All Private Schools

$3,168

$10,715

$17,435

$31,319

Private vs Public

$282

-$4,350

$6,035

$1,967

National per student figures reveal the true gap between sectors A more accurate way to understand the weight and distribution of capital investment across school sectors is to standardise the investment on a per student basis. This enables us to better understand the priority and commitment that our government to children in public and private schools.

11 Per student calculations provide the best comparison of KEY FINDING 11

investment in public and private schools. On a per student basis, private schools enjoy greater investment every single year over the 10 years examined by this study.

12 The difference in capital funding varies from approximately KEY FINDING 12

$1,700 per student in 2017 to $394 in 2011.

13 The smallest gap in per student funding between private and KEY FINDING 13

public schools is found during the BER period when it was less than $500 per student in 2011 and 2012.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

33

14 From the end of BER funding, the gap in capital funding per KEY FINDING 14

student has increased beyond $1,000 for every year.

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris FIGURE 8.

Figure 3.

National Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student

National Annual Capital Investment in Schools National Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student

$ PER STUDENT $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $-

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$1,309

$2,994

$2,333

$1,357

$780

$640

$630

$588

$739

$1,281

All Private

$2,718

$4,365

$2,727

$1,844

$1,848

$2,070

$2,267

$2,175

$2,450

$2,644

Funding Gap per Student

$1,409

$1,372

$394

$487

$1,069

$1,430

$1,636

$1,586

$1,711

$1,364

Public

Figure 4.

National ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Private:Public School Investment per Student National ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Private:Public School Investment per Student

4.0

3.6

Annual investment in private schools/ annual investment in public schools

3.5

3.7 3.3

3.2

3.0 2.4

2.5 2.1

2.1

2.0 1.5

1.5

1.2

1.4

1.0 0.5

34

0.0 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam(ROI) Rorris Ratio of Inequity Explanation National Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student The Ratio of Inequity (ROI) presents private school capital investment per student as a multiple of public school capital investment per student. It gauges the extent of the imbalance in capital National Annual Capital Investment in Schools, investment between school sectors. A value of ‘1’ means $ per student a balance in per student funding. A value of plus or minus from ‘1’ denotes an imbalance. For example, a value of 2 means that private $5,000 schools have invested double the amount per student of public schools.

Figure 3.

$4,500 $4,000 $3,500

15 Nationally, the ROI has been above ‘2’ for every year except for KEY FINDING 15 $3,000

$2,500

$2,000 BER years of investment in public schools. All years the three before$1,500 and after BER program, have shown a ratio of inequity $1,000 stretching from a best case scenario of 2.1 to as high as 3.7. The $500 ROI of capital investment between private and public schools is $2010 a ratio 2011 2013 than 2014 inequity.

2015 2016frames 2017 2018 so extreme it2009 is more of2012shame It Public $1,309 $2,994 $2,333 $1,357 $780 $640 $630 $588 $739 $1,281 the signal failure of public provide semblance of $2,644 All Private $2,718 $4,365 $2,727policy $1,844 to$1,848 $2,070any $2,267 $2,175 $2,450 Funding Gap per Student $1,409 $1,372 $394 $487 $1,069 $1,430 $1,636 $1,586 $1,711 $1,364 balance in the provision of facilities across school sectors.

Figure 4.

National ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Private:Public School Investment per FIGURE 9. Student

National ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Private : Public School National ROI (Ratio of Inequity)

Private:Public School Investment per Student INVESTMENT PER STUDENT 4.0

3.6

Annual investment in private schools/ annual investment in public schools

3.5

3.7 3.3

3.2

3.0 2.4

2.5 2.1

2.1

2.0 1.5

1.5

1.2

1.4

1.0 0.5 0.0 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

35

16 The significance of the capital imbalance captured by the ROI is KEY FINDING 16

heightened because – (i) a majority of all students are in public schools, and (ii) students from poorer backgrounds are far more likely to be found in public schools. These students have less chance for resource deficiencies at the school level to be offset by household access to resources and support.

36

The Capital Investment Gap The Capital Investment Gap (CIG) is the difference between capital investment in private schools per student and what public schools and capital investment.

17 The average annual Capital Investment Gap per student has KEY FINDING 17

remained fairly consistent between the Pre-BER period ($1409) and the Post-BER period ($1466). The BER period improved the situation, but even during this period public schools were underDRAFT VERSION 1 – Adamby Rorris invested more than $750 a student every year.

Figure 5.

Annual Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools, Per Student by Period

FIGURE 10.($ Million)

Annual CapitalAnnual Investment Gap for Public Schools National Capital Gap for Public Schools,

Per Student by Period ($ Million) PER STUDENT BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) $1,600 $1,400

$ iUnder-Investment Per Student for Public Schools

$1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $-

Pre BER (2009)

BER Average (2010-12)

Post BER Average(2013-18)

$1,409

$751

$1,466

Average Annual Gap, $ Million

Cumulative Capital Gap, $ per Student for Public Schools Cumulative Capital Investment Gap, $ per Student $14,000

$12,000 nder-Investment ic Schools

Figure 6.

$10,000

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

37

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris Figure 5.

Annual Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools, Per Student by Period ($ Million) Annual National Capital Gap for Public Schools, Per Student by Period ($ Million) $1,600

18 The per student cumulative impact of the Capital Gap across KEY FINDING 18

$1,400

$ iUnder-Investment Per Student for Public Schools

$1,200

years is substantial. Over 10 years, the capital gap in funding between private schools and public schools is more than $12,450 $800 per student. In the post-BER period (2013-18), public schools $600 received in total nearly $8,800 less per student for capital $400 investment than private schools.

$1,000

$200 $-

Average Annual Gap,11. $ Million FIGURE

Pre BER (2009)

BER Average (2010-12)

Post BER Average(2013-18)

$1,409

$751

$1,466

Cumulative Capital Gap $ PER STUDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Figure 6.

Cumulative Capital Gap, $ per Student for Public Schools Cumulative Capital Investment Gap, $ per Student $14,000

$ per Student Under-Investment for Public Schools

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

38

Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

BER Period Total (2010-12)

Post BER period Total (2013-18)

$1,409

$12,457

$2,253

$8,796

2

19 The average annual Capital Investment Gap has been greatest KEY FINDING 19

in the post-BER years ($3.8 billion). This exceeds the $3.1 billion pre-BER (2009) and more than double the CIG during BER period when there was a gap of $1.7 billion.

FIGURE 12.

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Annual National Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools Figure 7. Annual National Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools, ($ Million) $ MILLION

Annual National Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools, Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ Million in Under-Investment for Public Schools

$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $Average Annual Gap, $ Million

Figure 8.

Pre BER (2009)

BER Average (2010-12)

Post BER Average(2013-18)

$3,106

$1,689

$3,793

Cumulative Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million)

Cumulative Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million)

Under-Investment blic Schools

$35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

39

20 During the 10 year period 21 During the post-BER period

40

KEY FINDING 20

KEY FINDING 21

2009-18 the cumulative Capital Investment Gap between private and public sectors was $29.6 billion. This is the value of investment that was deprived from public schools if they had received the equivalent per student investment in their schools as for private schools.

(2013-18) the cumulative Capital Investment Gap between private and public sectors was $21.5 billion. This is the value of investment that was deprived from public schools if they had received the equivalent per student investment in their schools as for private schools.

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris Figure 7.

Annual National Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools, ($ Million) Annual National Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools, Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ Million in Under-Investment for Public Schools

$4,000 $3,500 $3,000

22 During the BER period (2010-12) public schools fared better, KEY$2,500 FINDING 22 $2,000

$1,500

however the cumulative Capital Investment Gap between private $1,000 and public sectors still exceeded $5 billion. This is the value of $500 investment that was deprived from public schools if they had $Pre BER (2009) BER Average (2010-12) BER Average(2013-18) received the equivalent per student investment in Post their schools Average Annual Gap, $ Million $3,106 $1,689 $3,793 as for private schools.

FIGURE Figure 8. 13.Cumulative Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million)

Cumulative Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools Cumulative Capital Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million)

$ MILLION

$ Million in Under-Investment for Public Schools

$35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $Cumulative Investment Gap

Figure 1.

Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

BER Period Total (201012)

Post BER period Total (2013-18)

$3,106

$29,642

$5,068

$21,467

Capital Investment by state/territory, $ per public student

3

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

41

State/territory comparisons in capital spending for public schools

23 Capital investment per student over 10 years across public KEY FINDING 23

systems varies from an annual average of just over $1,000 in Tasmania to as high as $2,141 in the ACT. The average annual expenditure in the post-BER period (2013-18) collapses across all jurisdictions with Tasmania, South Australia and NSW having the lowest levels ($500, $572, $610).

FIGURE 14.

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Capital Investment by state / territory $ PER PUBLIC STUDENT

Capital Investment by state/territory, $per public student

3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 -

10 Year Average

BER Average

NSW

1,100

1,974

610

VIC

1,267

2,188

764 693

QLD

1,197

2,348

SA

1,138

2,309

572

WA

1,829

2,679

1,467

TAS

1,027

1,903

500

ACT

2,141

3,136

1,447

NT

1,667

2,603

1,228

Figure 2.

Capital Investment Gap, by state/territory, $ million Capital Investment Gap, by state/territory, $ million

35,000 30,000

42

Post-BER Average

25,000 20,000 15,000

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Capital Investment by state/territory, $per public student 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500

24 Public schools in all states and territories have under-investment 1,000

KEY FINDING 24

500 -

NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS

10 Year Average BER Average Post-BER Average compared to their private school counterparts. NSW, Victoria and 1,100 1,974 610 1,267 the largest share of 2,188 764 QLD have the capital investment gap (CIG) 1,197 2,348 693 over all1,138 10 years and for the post-BER period (approximately 80% 2,309 572 1,829 2,679 1,467 for both).

1,027 1,903 500

ACT

2,141

3,136

1,447

NT

1,667

2,603

1,228

FIGURE 15.

Capital Investment Gap, by state/territory, million Capital Investment Gap, by state / $territory

Figure 2.

$ MILLION

Capital Investment Gap, by state/territory, $ million

35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 -5,000

10 Year Total

BER Total

Post-BER Total

NT

434

115

227

ACT

58

-30

132

TAS

666

156

438

WA

2,212

369

1,500

SA

1,654

157

1,235

QLD

7,507

1,157

5,335

VIC

7,976

1,381

5,891

NSW

9,106

1,789

6,647

Figure 3.

Cumulative Capital Investment Gap across states/territories, $ per student

4 ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

43

25 The cumulative capital investment gap over the 10 year period KEY FINDING 25

(2009-18) exceeds $8,000 per student for all jurisdictions except the ACT.

FIGURE 16.

Cumulative Capital Investment Gap across states / territories

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris $ PER STUDENT

Cumulative Capital Investment Gap, $ per student

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 10 Year Total

BER Total

Post-BER Total

-2,000 NSW

VIC

QLD

SA

WA

TAS

ACT

NSW Annual Capital Investment NSW Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

44

$3,000 $2,500 $2,000

NT

26 The imbalance in capital investment between private and public KEY FINDING 26

sectors is at critical levels across most years for all jurisdictions except ACT and WA. The majority of years where the Ratio of Inequity (ROI) was at less than critical levels, was during the BER period (2010-12).

FIGURE 17.

Ratio of Inequity (ROI) by state / territory YEAR

NATIONAL

NSW

VIC

QLD

SA

WA

TAS

ACT

NT

2009

2.08

1.65

1.92

3.75

2.75

2.02

1.90

0.62

3.30

2010

1.46

1.08

1.28

2.71

1.14

4.12

1.11

0.89

1.26

2011

1.17

1.81

1.14

1.20

0.95

0.62

1.95

0.68

1.41

2012

1.36

2.26

2.80

0.69

1.83

0.90

9.22

1.48

3.08

2013

2.37

3.69

3.63

2.10

1.90

1.14

25.28

1.08

1.94

2014

3.23

5.21

4.42

3.93

2.01

1.35

4.08

1.27

5.53

2015

3.60

4.26

6.84

4.73

5.38

1.38

3.63

1.56

3.21

2016

3.70

3.47

5.02

4.48

10.05

2.18

2.70

1.68

1.35

2017

3.32

3.82

2.61

5.12

4.52

2.50

2.55

2.05

1.13

2018

2.06

2.17

1.76

2.44

2.30

1.88

2.86

1.26

2.19

Pink shade = critical condition (>1.75), Yellow shade = poor condition (between 1.25 & 1.75), Green shade = relative balance (between 0.75 & 1.25), Blue shade = positive bias (0.75)

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

45

Investment in Australian Public Schools – recent announcements, policy directions and recommendations

Background The previous section has examined the data from ACARA to look at the trends in capital investment in public and private schools. This section summarises the various capital funding announcements made by state and territory governments over during 2019 and 2020, which have yet to be included in the ACARA finance dataset1..

NSW

Victoria

The NSW government claims to have a four year pipeline of $6.7 billion in school infrastructure projects. Planners, architects and builders are said to be working on more than 130 projects representing a total project value of $1.2 billion by the end of 2020.

The Victorian Government plans to invest $7.2 billion to build 100 new schools and deliver more than 1460 school upgrades by 2026. They estimate that this will support more than 7,500 construction jobs. 48 new schools have opened as of March 2021

There is no clear indication of how this funding will be split across sectors. However, the 2019-20 NSW budget does include $341 million across the forward estimates for “grants to non-government schools for essential infrastructure.”

There is a newly announced education building program of more than $1.18 billion in addition to the $6.1 billion already invested by the Victorian Government on school upgrades since 2014.

It is worth noting that in response, the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria is calling for the $400 million capital works package allocated to non-government schools over four years at the 2018 election to be brought forward. In 2019, $73 million was allocated to private schools from this fund.

46

1. Information collected by Jonathon Guy. Some of the included announcements (QLD, NT and ACT) are election promises and not yet allocated funding.

Queensland

Western Australia

Labor’s 2020 election promise Great Schools, Great Future was announced in October 2020 includes $1 billion would be spent on 26 new halls and performing arts centres, new classrooms at 46 schools and new playground and fencing.

In 2019-20, the WA government allocated $200 million to address high priority maintenance at all 789 public schools across the State,

Almost half the funding will come from $4 billion borrowed over the forward estimates. The rest will come from a $51.8 billion state-wide infrastructure program that has already been announced.

The government has said that this new promised investment builds on $5.2 billion in school infrastructure spending that has been delivered since 2015. It is worth noting however that the ABS records $2.4 billion of capital spending in QLD schools since 2014–15 and ACARA data shows $1.3 billion in public school capital funding from 2015 to 20182..

South Australia In August 2020 the SA government said that education projects worth more than $740 million were under construction. Of a total $1.3 billion allocated over the forward estimates it is expected that $1.1 billion of the total program’s investment is expected to be spent before the end of the 2021–22 financial year

The October 2020 State Budget includes a total investment of $456 million in school facilities in 2020-21.

Tasmania In May 2020 the government announced a total of $184.2 million is being invested across the state over the forward estimates in capital works which includes new schools, school upgrades, new Child and Family Learning Centres, new and upgraded kindergartens and school farm redevelopments.

In response to COVID-19 the Tasmanian Government’s announced an initial $10 million School Revitalisation Maintenance Package split across 338 school and college maintenance projects (approx. $30,000 per project) completed by the middle of next year.

This is a very minor part of the state’s total $3.1 billion construction stimulus plan.

Overall, more than 100 school upgrades will be delivered in the coming years. However, a significant proportion of this spending results from the plan to accommodate the move of year 7s from primary to high school in 2022, rather than any objective improvement in school infrastructure overall.

2. Previous QLD government spending announcements include (i) Building Future Schools Fund Project Report, November 2018 https://www.statedevelopment. qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/33494/building-future-schools-fund-project-report.pdf, and (ii) Building Future Schools Program, a decade long “master-plan” for state school infrastructure in the years 2016-2026. https://qed.qld.gov.au/programs-initiatives/department/building-education/major-projectsand-initiatives/building-future-schools-program ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

47

Northern Territory

ACT

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, Labor promised the Building Better Schools program to give all NT government, Catholic and independent schools $300,000 each to spend on the infrastructure project of their choice.

Prior to the October 2020election Labor made the following promise:

To February 2020, 121 of the Territory’s government schools have either had their projects completed or have them underway.

In the non-government school sector, 18 have had their projects completed, and a further 10 are underway.

• 275 households will have access to free internet

Three of the four rounds of the program have been delivered so far and the government states that by 2021, 148 government schools, and 35 non-government schools will have either completed their projects, have them underway or be in the planning stage. The original timeline was for all rounds to be completed by mid-2021. 34 schools are due to see the funds delivered over the next three years, delayed from planned finalisation in mid-2021.

• Every student in ACT public high schools and colleges will get a free Chromebook

• A new dedicated eSatefy expert will be appointed • New, zero emissions schools in the Molonglo Valley, West Belconnen and two new schools in Gungahlin • Expanded college capacity in Canberra’s North • A major renewal of Narrabundah College • A $99 million investment in existing schools across Canberra • A low interest loan scheme for nongovernment schools to invest in solar panels and battery storage systems • A new $85 million high school in Taylor and a new $35 million primary school to meet forecast growth in public school enrolments in North Gungahlin. Construction on the high school in Taylor will commence in the 2022–23 financial year.

48

Recommendations for justice and equity of investment Recommendation 1.

Minimum per student investment matches private schools. State and territory governments commit a minimum capital investment per student in public schools that matches the average per student investment of all private schools. An additional annual national investment of $3.8 billion will deliver for public school students across Australia the same per student investment in their schools as enjoyed by students in private schools. This will deliver a minimum equity funding position for public schools so that students within public care are not disadvantaged relative to private school institutions.

Recommendation 2.

Cease capital support for private schools.

State and territory governments cease to make any contributions to capital investment within the private school sector. Divert to the public sector any existing capital grants, interest subsidy programs and any other forms of capital investment assistance currently provided to the private school sector. This will be the first instalment to help deliver Recommendation1 (above).

Recommendation 4.

Modern monitoring and reporting systems engaged all in schools. State and territory departments of education should put in place digital solutions that can be accessed via mobile apps. These can quickly engage the school users and draw quick attention to problems. The effective management and monitoring of public school capital investments can only reliably happen with the engagement of its primary users – students, teachers, parents and the other community users.

Recommendation 5.

Establish School Facilities Board at regional and state levels. The decades long neglect of Australian public schools has been facilitated by the effective absence of accountability towards the community members that need and use these facilities.

Bureaucratic systems prevent this neglect from being communicated and thereby block demands for effective and efficient investment in schools. The democratic participation of teachers, parents and students in the oversight of school facilities can give voice to reasonable demands for justice and equity across all school systems.

Recommendation 3.

School communities (teachers, students, parents and community members using schools) coordinate to identify critical gaps such as examples of schools with large number of demountables, schools in hot areas with no air con etc. and other glaring capacity of maintenance needs. These infrastructure gaps within each state/territory jurisdiction would highlight the extent of the longstanding problem with deficient capital investment in school facilities.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

49

14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 -2,000

Attachment A State and territory profiles 10 Year Total BER Total NSW

VIC

QLD

SA

WA

Post-BER Total

TAS

ACT

NT

NSW NSW AnnualAnnual Capital Capital Investment Investment

NSW Annual Capital Investment in Schools NSW Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

$ MILLIONS $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $-$500 -$1,000

DRAFT VERSION 1 -$1,500 – Adam Rorris Public Schools

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$1,034

$2,724

$1,097

$536

$329

$244

$334

$407

$519

$1,005

All Private Schools

$854

$1,483

$1,016

$629

$639

$672

$754

$750

$1,051

$1,146

Private vs Public

-$180

-$1,241

-$81

$93

$310

$429

$420

$343

$531

$142

NSW Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions, by investment period

NSW Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions

BY INVESTMENT PERIOD $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000

5

$2,000 $-$2,000

50

Pre-BER (2009)

BER Total

Post BER Total

Public Schools

$1,034

$4,358

$2,838

$8,230

All Private Schools

$854

$3,128

$5,012

$8,994

Private vs Public

-$180

-$1,229

$2,174

$765

Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

10 Year Total

Pre-BER (2009)

BER Total

Post BER Total

Public Schools

$1,034

$4,358

$2,838

10 Year Total $8,230

All Private Schools

$854

$3,128

$5,012

$8,994

Private vs Public

-$180

-$1,229

$2,174

$765

Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

NSW Private School Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School NSW - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Investment Private School Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School Investment per Student

PER STUDENT 6.0

5.2

Annual investment in private schools/ annual investment in public schools

5.0 4.3 3.8

3.7

4.0

3.5

3.0 2.3 2.0

2.2

1.8

1.6 1.1

1.0

0.0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

NSW Annual Capital Investment in Schools NSW Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student

$ PER STUDENT $4,500

6

$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $-

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Public

$1,412

$3,710

$1,489

$725

$440

$323

$438

$527

$664

$1,272

All Private

$2,328

$4,019

$2,694

$1,634

$1,624

$1,681

$1,863

$1,827

$2,533

$2,763

Funding Gap per Student

$916

$309

$1,205

$910

$1,184

$1,359

$1,425

$1,301

$1,870

$1,492

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

51

Capital Gap DRAFT VERSIONInvestment AdamRorris Rorris DRAFT VERSION 11––Adam CapitalInvestment InvestmentGap Gap Capital

NSW Investment Gap for Public Schools $ MILLION UNDER INVESTMENT PER YEAR NSW - Investment Gap for Public Schools, NSW - Investment Gap for Public Schools, $ Million Under Investment per Year $ Million Under Investment per Year

$ $Million MillionininUnder-Investment Under-Investmentfor for Public PublicSchools Schools

$1,600 $1,600 $1,400 $1,400 $1,200 $1,200 $1,000 $1,000 $800 $800 $600 $600 $400 $400 $200 $200 $$-

Capital Investment Gap Capital Investment Gap $ Million $ Million

2009 2009

2010 2010

2011 2011

2012 2012

2013 2013

2014 2014

2015 2015

2016 2016

2017 2017

2018 2018

$671 $671

$227 $227

$889 $889

$673 $673

$884 $884

$1,027 $1,027

$1,089 $1,089

$1,005 $1,005

$1,463 $1,463

$1,179 $1,179

NSW Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools COMPARISONS BY PERIOD MILLION) NSW -($ Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools, NSW - Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools, Comparisons by Period ($ Million) Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ $Million MillionininUnder-Investment Under-Investment for forPublic PublicSchools Schools

$1,400 $1,400 $1,200 $1,200 $1,000 $1,000 $800 $800 $600 $600 $400 $400 $200 $200 $$Average Annual Gap, $ Million Average Annual Gap, $ Million

52

Pre BER (2009) Pre BER (2009) $671 $671

BER Average (2010-12) BER Average (2010-12) $596 $596

Post BER Average(2013-18) Post BER Average(2013-18) $1,152 $1,152

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

NSW Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools NSW - Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million), NSW - Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million),

$ Million $ Million in in Under-Investment Under-Investment Public Schools forfor Public Schools

by Period ($ Million) COMPARISONS BY PERIODComparisons ($ MILLION) Comparisons by Period ($ Million) $10,000 $10,000 $9,000 $9,000 $8,000 $8,000 $7,000 $7,000 $6,000 $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $$-

Cumulative Investment Gap Cumulative Investment Gap

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) $671 $671

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $9,106 $9,106

BER Period Total (2010BER Period12) Total (201012) $1,789 $1,789

Post BER period Total Post BER period Total (2013-18) (2013-18) $6,647 $6,647

NSW Cumulative Investment Gap Gap, NSW - Cumulative Investment

$ per $ per Student Student Under-Investment Under-Investment forfor Public Schools Public Schools

NSW Gap, $ per- Cumulative Student for Investment Public Schools, $ per Student for Public Schools, $ PER STUDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS $14,000 $14,000 $12,000 $12,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 $8,000 $6,000 $6,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 $$Cumulative Investment Gap per Student Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) $916 $916

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $11,970 $11,970

BER Period Total BER(2010-12) Period Total (2010-12) $2,424 $2,424

Post BER period Total Post BER period Total (2013-18) (2013-18) $8,630 $8,630

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

53

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Victoria

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Victoria Annual Capital Investment Annual VictoriaCapital Investment

Annual Capital Investment in Schools AnnualVIC Capital Investment VIC Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

$ MILLIONS $2,000

VIC Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

$1,500 $2,000 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $1,000 $$500 -$500 $-$1,000 -$500

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Public Schools

$767

$1,830

$1,192

$387

$300

$252

$221

$299

$634

$958

All Private-$1,000 Schools

$877 2009 $109 $767

$1,394 2010 -$436 $1,830

$812 2011 -$380 $1,192

$650 2012 $264 $387

$655 2013 $355 $300

$668 2014 $416 $252

$900 2015 $679 $221

$892 2016 $593 $299

$973 2017 $339 $634

$978 2018 $19 $958

All Private Schools

$877

$1,394

$812

$650

$655

$668

$900

$892

$973

$978

Private vs Public

$109

-$436

-$380

$264

$355

$416

$679

$593

$339

$19

Private vs Public Public Schools

VIC -

Annual Capital Capital Investment in Schools $ millions, in Schools $ millions VIC Annual Investment by investment period VIC -

BY INVESTMENT PERIOD Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions, $10,000

by investment period

$8,000 $10,000 $6,000 $8,000 $4,000 $6,000 $2,000 $4,000 $$2,000 -$2,000 $-

Pre-BER (2009)

BER Total

Post BER Total

10 Year Total

$767

$3,408

$2,664

$6,840

$877 Pre-BER (2009) $109 $767

$2,856 BER Total -$552 $3,408

$5,066 Post BER Total $2,402 $2,664

$8,799 10 Year Total $1,959 $6,840

All Private Schools

$877

$2,856

$5,066

$8,799

Private vs Public

$109

-$552

$2,402

$1,959

Public Schools -$2,000 All Private Schools Private vs Public Public Schools

54

10

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris Ratio of Inequity (ROI) DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Ratio of Inequity (ROI) Ratio of Inequity (ROI)School Investment per Student VIC Private

as a Multiple of Public School VIC - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Investment - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Private VIC School Investment per Student as a Private Investment per Student as a Multiple ofSchool Public School Investment per Student Multiple of Public School Investment per Student

PER STUDENT

Annual Annual investment investment in private in private schools/ schools/ annual investment in public schools annual investment in public schools

8.0 8.0

6.8 6.8

7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0

4.4 4.4 3.6 3.6

4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

2.8 2.8 1.9 1.9

1.3 1.3

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

5.0 5.0

2009 2009

2.6 2.6 1.8 1.8

1.1 1.1

2010 2010

2011 2011

2012 2012

2013 2013

2014 2014

2015 2015

2016 2016

2017 2017

2018 2018

VIC Annual Capital Investment in Schools VIC - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, VIC - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student $ per student

$ PER STUDENT

Public Public All Private

$5,000 $5,000 $4,500 $4,500 $4,000 $4,000 $3,500 $3,500 $3,000 $3,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $500 $$-

All Private Funding Gap per Student Funding Gap per Student

2009 2009 $1,524 $1,524 $2,921

2010 2010 $3,546 $3,546 $4,553

2011 2011 $2,288 $2,288 $2,605

2012 2012 $729 $729 $2,042

2013 2013 $555 $555 $2,015

2014 2014 $457 $457 $2,019

2015 2015 $392 $392 $2,678

2016 2016 $520 $520 $2,610

2017 2017 $1,074 $1,074 $2,802

2018 2018 $1,585 $1,585 $2,795

$2,921 $1,397 $1,397

$4,553 $1,007 $1,007

$2,605 $317 $317

$2,042 $1,313 $1,313

$2,015 $1,460 $1,460

$2,019 $1,562 $1,562

$2,678 $2,286 $2,286

$2,610 $2,090 $2,090

$2,802 $1,727 $1,727

$2,795 $1,210 $1,210

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

55

Capital Investment Gap DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris Capital Investment Gap

VIC Investment Gap for Public Schools $ MILLION UNDER INVESTMENT PER YEAR VIC -Investment Gap for Public Schools, $ Million Under Investment per Year

$$ Million Million in in Under-Investment Under-Investment for for Public Public Schools Schools

$1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $-

Capital Investment Gap $ Million

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$703

$520

$165

$696

$790

$861

$1,287

$1,202

$1,019

$732

VIC Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools COMPARISONS BY PERIOD MILLION) VIC -($ Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools, Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$$ Million Million in in Under-Investment Under-Investment for Public Public Schools Schools for

$1,200

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$Average Annual Gap, $ Million

56

Pre BER (2009) $703

BER Average (2010-12) $460

Post BER Average(2013-18) $1,020

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

VIC Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools VIC VIC Cumulative Investment Gap for- Public Schools ($ million),

COMPARISONSCumulative

BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) Investment Gap Public Schools ($ million), Comparisons by for Period ($ Million)

$ Million $ Million in Under-Investment in Under-Investment for for Public Schools Public Schools

Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$9,000 $9,000 $8,000 $8,000 $7,000 $7,000 $6,000 $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $$-

Cumulative Investment Gap Cumulative Investment Gap

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) $703 $703

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $7,976 $7,976

BER Period Total (2010BER Period12) Total (201012) $1,381 $1,381

Post BER period Total (2013-18) Post BER period Total (2013-18) $5,891 $5,891

VIC Cumulative Investment Gap VIC -

- Student for Public Schools, Cumulative Investment Gap,VIC $ per

$ PER STUDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPARISONS

BY PERIOD Cumulative Investment Gap, $ per Student Comparisons by Period for Public Schools, $ per $ per Student Student Under-Investment Under-Investment Public Schools for for Public Schools

$16,000 $16,000

Comparisons by Period

$14,000 $14,000 $12,000 $12,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 $8,000 $6,000 $6,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 $$-

Cumulative Investment Gap per Student Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) $1,397 $1,397

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $14,370 $14,370

BER Period Total BER(2010-12) Period Total (2010-12) $2,638 $2,638

Post BER period Total (2013-18) Post BER period Total (2013-18) $10,336 $10,336

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

57

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Queensland

Queensland Queensland Annual Capital Investment Annual Capital Investment Annual Capital Investment

QLD Annual Capital Investment in Schools QLD QLDin- Schools, $ millions Annual Capital Investment Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

$ MILLIONS $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $500 $-

$-

-$500 -$500 -$1,000 -$1,000 -$1,500 -$1,500 2009 2009 Public Schools $368 Public Schools $368 All Private Schools $667 All Private Schools $667 Private vs Public $299 Private vs Public $299

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 $788 $1,234 $1,425 $788 $1,234 $1,425 $1,049 $739 $494 $1,049 $739 $494 $261 -$495 -$931 $261 -$495 -$931

2013 2013 $483 $483 $506 $506 $24 $24

2014 2014 $390 $390 $762 $762 $373 $373

2015 2015 $270 $270 $637 $637 $367 $367

2016 2016 $254 $254 $561 $561 $307 $307

2017 2017 $241 $241 $602 $602 $361 $361

2018 2018 $541 $541 $639 $639 $98 $98

QLD Annual CapitalQLD-Investment in Schools $ millions QLDAnnual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions,

BY INVESTMENTAnnual PERIOD Capital Investmentperiod in Schools $ millions, by investment by investment period

$8,000 $8,000 $7,000 $7,000 $6,000 $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $$-$1,000 -$1,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 Public Schools Public Schools All Private Schools All Private Schools Private vs Public Private vs Public

58

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) $368 $368 $667 $667 $299 $299

BER Total BER Total $3,447 $3,447 $2,282 $2,282 -$1,165 -$1,165

Post BER Total Post BER Total $2,179 $2,179 $3,709 $3,709 $1,530 $1,530

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $5,994 $5,994 $6,658 $6,658 $664 $664

14 14

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris Ratio of Inequity (ROI) DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Ratio of Inequity (ROI) QLD Private Ratio of Inequity (ROI) School Investment per Student

as a Multiple of Public School Investment QLD - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Private School Investment per Student as a QLD - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Multiple of Public School Investment per Student Private School Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School Investment per Student

PER STUDENT 6.0

Annual Annual investment investment in private in private schools/ schools/ annual investment in public schools annual investment in public schools

6.0

5.1

5.0

4.7

5.0

4.7

4.0

3.8

4.0

3.8

3.9 2.7

3.0

2.7

2.4 2.1

2.0

2.4

2.1

2.0

1.2

1.0

1.2

0.7 0.7

1.0

0.0

4.5

3.9

3.0

0.0

5.1

4.5

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

QLD Annual Capital Investment in Schools QLD - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student QLD - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student

$ PER STUDENT $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $$-$1,000 -$1,000 -$2,000 Public

-$2,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$767 2009 $2,880 $767

$1,632 2010 $4,417 $1,632

$2,534 2011 $3,050 $2,534

$2,879 2012 $1,994 $2,879 -$884 $1,994

$958 2013 $2,006 $958

$1,049 $2,006

$760 2014 $2,985 $760

$2,224 $2,985

$519 2015 $2,457 $519

$1,938 $2,457

$481 2016 $2,153 $481

$1,672 $2,153

$449 2017 $2,297 $449

$1,848 $2,297

$989 2018 $2,415 $989

$1,426 $2,415

-$884

$1,049

$2,224

$1,938

$1,672

$1,848

$1,426

All Private Public Funding Gap per Student All Private

$2,112 $2,880

$2,785 $4,417

$516 $3,050

Funding Gap per Student

$2,112

$2,785

$516

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

59

Capital Gap DRAFT VERSIONInvestment Adam Rorris Rorris DRAFT VERSION 11 –– Adam Capital Investment Investment Gap Gap Capital

QLD Investment Gap for Public Schools $ MILLION UNDER INVESTMENT PER Gap YEAR QLD -- Investment Investment Gap for Public Public Schools, Schools, QLD for Million Under Under Investment Investment per per Year Year $$ Million

$$ Million Million in in Under-Investment Under-Investment for for Public Public Schools Schools

$1,600 $1,600 $1,400 $1,400 $1,200 $1,200 $1,000 $1,000 $800 $800 $600 $600 $400 $400 $200 $200 $$-$200 -$200 -$400 -$400 -$600 -$600

CapitalInvestment InvestmentGap Gap Capital Million $$ Million

2009 2009

2010 2010

2011 2011

2012 2012

2013 2013

2014 2014

2015 2015

2016 2016

2017 2017

2018 2018

$1,014 $1,014

$1,344 $1,344

$251 $251

-$438 -$438

$528 $528

$1,141 $1,141

$1,007 $1,007

$884 $884

$994 $994

$781 $781

QLD Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools COMPARISONS BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) QLD -- Annual Annual Investment Gap Gap for for Public Public Schools, Schools, QLD Investment Comparisons by

by Period Period ($ ($ Million) Million) Comparisons

$$ Million Million in in Under-Investment Under-Investment for for Public Public Schools Schools

$1,200 $1,200

$1,000 $1,000

$800 $800

$600 $600

$400 $400

$200 $200

$$Average Annual Annual Gap, Gap, $$ Million Million Average

60

Pre BER BER (2009) (2009) Pre $1,014 $1,014

BER Average Average (2010-12) (2010-12) BER $386 $386

PostBER BER Average(2013-18) Average(2013-18) Post $961 $961

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris QLD Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million), Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

QLD Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools QLD COMPARISONS

BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) 8000 $ Million in $Under-Investment Million in Under-Investment for Public Schools for Public Schools

Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million), Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

7000 8000 6000

7000 5000 6000 4000 5000 3000 4000 2000 3000 1000 2000 0 1000

Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

BER Period Total (2010-12)

Post BER period Total (2013-18)

1014

$7,507

$1,157

$5,335

Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

BER Period Total (2010-12)

Post BER period Total (2013-18)

1014

$7,507

$1,157

$5,335

Cumulative Investment Gap 0 Cumulative Investment Gap

QLD Cumulative Investment Gap

QLD -Cumulative Investment Gap,

$ per Student for Public Schools $ PER STUDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

QLD -Cumulative Investment Gap, $ per Student for Public Schools

$ per Student $ per Under-Investment Student Under-Investment for Public Schools for Public Schools

16000 14000 16000 12000 14000 10000 12000 8000 10000 6000 8000 4000 6000 2000 4000 0 2000 Cumulative Investment Gap per Student 0 Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

BER Period Total (2010-12)

Post BER period Total (2013-18)

2112

$14,687

$2,417

$10,158

Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

BER Period Total (2010-12)

Post BER period Total (2013-18)

2112

$14,687

$2,417

$10,158

61

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

17

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

South Australia

South Australia South Australia Annual CapitalCapital Investment Annual Investment Annual Capital Investment

SA Annual Capital Investment in Schools SAAnnual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions SA-

$ MILLIONS

Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions $700 $700 $600 $600 $500 $500 $400 $400 $300 $300 $200 $200 $100 $100$$-$100

-$100 -$200 -$200 -$300

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$150 2009 All Private $247 Public SchoolsSchools $150 Public $247 $97 All Private Private vs Schools

$578 2010 $392 $578

$375 2011 $202 $375

$115 2012 $120 $115

$109 2013 $115 $109

$109 2014 $123 $109

$47 2015 $140 $47

$32 2016 $175 $32

$74 2017 $180 $74

$209 2018 $261 $209

-$186 $392

-$172 $202

$120$5

$115$5

$123$14

$93 $140

$143 $175

$106 $180

$52 $261

Private vs Public

-$186

-$172

$5

$5

$14

$93

$143

$106

$52

-$300 Public Schools

$97

SA Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions SA - Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions, byInvestment investmentinperiod SA - Annual Capital Schools $ millions,

BY INVESTMENT PERIOD

by investment period

$2,500 $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $500 $$-$500 -$500 Public Schools All Private Public SchoolsSchools Private Public All Private vs Schools Private vs Public

62

Pre-BER (2009)

BER Total

Post BER Total

10 Year Total

Pre-BER$150 (2009) $247 $150

BER $1,068 Total $714 $1,068

$580 Post BER Total $994 $580

10 Year$1,798 Total $1,955 $1,798

$97 $247

-$354 $714

$414 $994

$157 $1,955

$97

-$354

$414

$157

18 18

DRAFT DRAFT VERSION VERSION 1 1 –– Adam Adam Rorris Rorris

Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

Ratio Ratio of of Inequity Inequity (ROI) (ROI)

SA Private School Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School Investment SA - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) SA - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Private Private School School Investment Investment per per Student Student as as a a Multiple of Public School Investment per Student Multiple of Public School Investment per Student

PER STUDENT

Annual Annualinvestment investmentininprivate privateschools/ schools/ annual annualinvestment investmentininpublic publicschools schools

12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0

10.0 10.0

8.0 8.0

5.4 5.4

6.0 6.0

4.0 4.0

4.5 4.5 2.7 2.7

2.0 2.0

0.0 0.0

2009 2009

1.1 1.1

0.9 0.9

2010 2010

2011 2011

1.8 1.8

1.9 1.9

2.0 2.0

2012 2012

2013 2013

2014 2014

2.3 2.3

2015 2015

2016 2016

2017 2017

2018 2018

SA Annual Capital Investment in Schools SA SA -- Annual Annual Capital Capital Investment Investment in in Schools, Schools, $ per student $ per student

$ PER STUDENT $5,000 $5,000 $4,500 $4,500 $4,000 $4,000 $3,500 $3,500 $3,000 $3,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $500 $$-$500 -$500 Public Public All Private All Private Funding Gap per Student Funding Gap per Student

2009 2009 $1,023 $1,023 $2,809 $2,809 $1,786 $1,786

2010 2010 $3,846 $3,846 $4,382 $4,382 $536 $536

2011 2011 $2,360 $2,360 $2,240 $2,240 -$120 -$120

2012 2012 $721 $721 $1,320 $1,320 $599 $599

2013 2013 $660 $660 $1,253 $1,253 $593 $593

2014 2014 $663 $663 $1,334 $1,334 $671 $671

2015 2015 $281 $281 $1,513 $1,513 $1,232 $1,232

2016 2016 $188 $188 $1,892 $1,892 $1,704 $1,704

2017 2017 $432 $432 $1,953 $1,953 $1,521 $1,521

2018 2018 $1,207 $1,207 $2,775 $2,775 $1,568 $1,568

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

63

DRAFT VERSION 1 DRAFT VERSIONInvestment 1 –– Adam Adam Rorris RorrisGap Capital

Capital Capital Investment Investment Gap Gap

SA Investment Gap for Public Schools SA - Investment Gap for Public Schools, $ MILLION UNDER INVESTMENT PER YEAR SA - Investment Gap for Public Schools, $ Million Under Investment per Year $ Million Under Investment per Year

$ $Million MillionininUnder-Investment Under-Investmentfor for Public PublicSchools Schools

$350 $350 $300 $300 $250 $250 $200 $200 $150 $150 $100 $100 $50 $50 $$-$50 -$50

Capital Investment Gap Capital Investment Gap $ Million $ Million

2009 2009

2010 2010

2011 2011

2012 2012

2013 2013

2014 2014

2015 2015

2016 2016

2017 2017

2018 2018

$262 $262

$81 $81

-$19 -$19

$96 $96

$98 $98

$110 $110

$206 $206

$289 $289

$261 $261

$271 $271

SA Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools SA - Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools,

SA - Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools, COMPARISONS BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) Comparisons

by Period ($ Million) Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ $Million MillionininUnder-Investment Under-Investment forPublic PublicSchools Schools for

$300 $300 $250 $250 $200 $200 $150 $150 $100 $100 $50 $50 $$Average Annual Gap, $ Million Average Annual Gap, $ Million

64

Pre BER (2009) Pre BER (2009) $262 $262

BER Average (2010-12) BER Average (2010-12) $52 $52

Post BER Average(2013-18) Post BER Average(2013-18) $227 $227

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris SA SA Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million), Comparisons bySAPeriod ($ Million) -

COMPARISONS

BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million), Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$1,800 $ Million $ Million in Under-Investment in Under-Investment for Schools Public Schools for Public

$1,600 $1,800 $1,400 $1,600 $1,200 $1,400 $1,000 $1,200 $800 $1,000 $600 $800 $400 $600 $200 $400 $$200

Cumulative Investment$-Gap

Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

BER Period Total (201012)

Post BER period Total (2013-18)

$262 Pre-BER (2009)

$1,654 10 Year Total

$157 BER Period Total (201012)

$1,235 Post BER period Total (2013-18)

$262

$1,654

$157

$1,235

Cumulative Investment Gap

SA Cumulative Investment Gap

SA - Cumulative Investment Gap,

$ per Student for Public Schools, $ PER STUDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SA - Cumulative Investment Gap, $ per Student for Public Schools,

$ per Student $ per Student Under-Investment Under-Investment for Public for Schools Public Schools

$12,000 $12,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 $8,000 $6,000 $6,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 $$Cumulative Investment Gap per Student Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

BER Period Total (2010-12)

Post BER period Total (2013-18)

$1,786 Pre-BER (2009)

$10,090 10 Year Total

$1,015 Total BER Period (2010-12)

$7,289 Post BER period Total (2013-18)

$1,786

$10,090

$1,015

$7,289

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

65

DRAFT DRAFTVERSION VERSION1 1– –Adam AdamRorris Rorris

Western Western Western Australia AustraliaAustralia Annual Capital Investment

AnnualCapital CapitalInvestment Investment Annual

WA Annual Capital Investment in Schools WA WA - Annual Annual Capital Capital Investment Investment inin Schools, Schools, $ millions $ millions

$ MILLIONS $1,500 $1,500

$1,000 $1,000

$500 $500

$- $-

-$500 -$500

-$1,000 -$1,000

2009 2009

2010 2010

2011 2011

2012 2012

2013 2013

2014 2014

2015 2015

2016 2016

2017 2017

2018 2018

$335 $335

$272 $272

$1,109 $1,109

$566 $566

$491 $491

$434 $434

$555 $555

$319 $319

$249 $249

$365 $365

AllAll Private Private Schools Schools $353 $353

$580 $580

$354 $354

$254 $254

$278 $278

$288 $288

$374 $374

$344 $344

$300 $300

$319 $319

Private Private vs vs Public Public

$308 $308

-$755 -$755

-$312 -$312

-$214 -$214

-$146 -$146

-$182 -$182

$25 $25

$51$51

-$46 -$46

Public Public Schools Schools

$17$17

WA Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions WA - Annual Capital Investment Schools $ millions, WA - Annual Capital Investment inin Schools $ millions, by by investment investment period period

BY INVESTMENT PERIOD $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $- $-$1,000 -$1,000 -$2,000 -$2,000

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009)

BER Total BER Total

Post BER Total Post BER Total

Year Total 10 10 Year Total

Public Schools Public Schools

$335 $335

$1,947 $1,947

$2,414 $2,414

$4,697 $4,697

Private Schools AllAll Private Schools

$353 $353

$1,188 $1,188

$1,902 $1,902

$3,443 $3,443

Private Public Private vs vs Public

$17$17

-$759 -$759

-$511 -$511

-$1,253 -$1,253

2222

66

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

of Inequity RatioRatio of Inequity (ROI) (ROI) Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

WA Private School Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School WA - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Investment Private School Investment Student as a WA - ROI (Ratio of per Inequity) Multiple of Public Investment per Student Private SchoolSchool Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School Investment per Student

PER STUDENT 4.5

4.1

4.5 4.0

4.1

Annual investment in private schools/ Annual investment in private schools/ annual investment in public schools annual investment in public schools

4.0 3.5

3.5 3.0 2.5

3.0 2.5

2.5 2.0

2.2

2.0

2.0 1.5

1.1

1.5 1.0

0.9 0.6

1.0 0.5

0.5 0.0 0.0

2.5

2.2

2.0

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.9 1.9

1.1

0.9

0.6

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

WA Annual Capital Investment in Schools WA - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student Investment in Schools, $ PER STUDENT WA - Annual Capital $ per student

$6,000 $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $$-$1,000 -$1,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$3,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$1,451 2009

$1,162 2010

$4,624 2011

$2,250 2012

$1,888 2013

$1,626 2014

$2,014 2015

$1,142 2016

$876 2017

$1,255 2018

All Private Public

$2,936 $1,451

$4,786 $1,162

$2,861 $4,624

$2,020 $2,250

$2,146 $1,888

$2,199 $1,626

$2,770 $2,014

$2,492 $1,142

$2,191 $876

$2,356 $1,255

Funding Gap per Student All Private

$1,485 $2,936

$3,624 $4,786

-$1,762 $2,861

-$230 $2,020

$258 $2,146

$573 $2,199

$756 $2,770

$1,351 $2,492

$1,315 $2,191

$1,101 $2,356

Funding Gap per Student

$1,485

$3,624

-$1,762

-$230

$258

$573

$756

$1,351

$1,315

$1,101

Public

-$3,000

23 23 ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

67

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Capital Investment Gap

Capital Investment Gap Capital Investment Gap

WA Investment Gap for Public Schools WA - Investment Gap for Public Schools, $ MILLION UNDER INVESTMENT PERGap YEAR WA - Investment for Public Schools, $ Million Under Investment per Year $ Million Under Investment per Year

$ Million $ Million in in Under-Investment Under-Investment forfor Public Schools Public Schools

$1,000 $1,000 $800 $800 $600 $600 $400 $400 $200 $200 $$-$200 -$200 -$400 -$400

-$600 -$600 Capital Investment Gap Capital $Investment Gap Million $ Million

2009 2009 $343 $343

2010 2010 $849 $849

2011 2011 -$423 -$423

2012 2012 -$58 -$58

2013 2013 $67 $67

2014 2014 $153 $153

2015 2015 $208 $208

2016 2016 $377 $377

2017 2017 $375 $375

2018 2018 $320 $320

WA Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools WA - Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools,

COMPARISONS BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) WA - Annual Investment Gap for Schools, Comparisons

by Period ($ Public Million) Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ Million in in Under-Investment $ Million Under-Investment Public Schools forfor Public Schools

$400 $400 $350 $350 $300 $300 $250 $250 $200 $200 $150 $150 $100 $100 $50 $50 $$Average Annual Gap, $ Million Average Annual Gap, $ Million

68

Pre BER (2009) Pre BER (2009) $343 $343

BER Average (2010-12) BER Average (2010-12) $123 $123

Post BER Average(2013-18) Post BER Average(2013-18) $287 $287

24 24

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

WA Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools WA Cumulative Investment Gap for- Public Schools ($ million), WA

Comparisons by for Period ($ Million) COMPARISONS

BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) Cumulative Investment Gap Public Schools ($ million), Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ Million $ Million in Under-Investment in Under-Investment for Public Schools for Public Schools

$2,500 $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $500 $Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

Cumulative Investment Gap

Pre-BER (2009) $343

10 Year Total $2,212

Cumulative Investment Gap

$343

$2,212

$-

BER Period Total (2010BER Period12) Total (2010-

Post BER period Total (2013-18) Post BER period Total

$369

$1,500

12) $369

(2013-18) $1,500

WA Cumulative Investment Gap WA - Cumulative Investment Gap,

$ per Student forInvestment Public Schools WA - Cumulative Gap, $ PER STUDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS $ per Student for Public Schools

$ per $ per Student Student Under-Investment Under-Investment for Public Schools for Public Schools

$9,000 $9,000 $8,000 $8,000 $7,000 $7,000 $6,000 $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total

Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

Pre-BER (2009) $1,485

10 Year Total $8,470

Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

$1,485

$8,470

$-

BER Period Total BER(2010-12) Period Total

Post BER period Total (2013-18) Post BER period Total

$1,632

$5,354

(2010-12) $1,632

(2013-18) $5,354

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

69

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Tasmania

Tasmania Tasmania Capital Investment AnnualAnnual Capital Investment Annual Capital Investment

TAS Annual Capital Investment in Schools TAS - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

$ MILLIONS

TAS - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions $250 $250 $200 $200 $150 $150 $100 $100 $50 $-$50 -$50$-$50 -$100 -$100 -$150

2009

Public Schools-$150

$79 2009 All Private Schools $69 Public Schools $79 Private vs Public All Private Schools -$10 $69 Private vs Public

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$212 2010 $108 $212 -$104 $108

$76 2011 $66 $76 -$9 $66

$7 2012 $29 $7 $21 $29

$4 2013 $38 $4 $34 $38

$24 2014 $40 $24 $16 $40

$25 2015 $37 $25 $12 $37

$48 2016 $53 $48 $5 $53

$43 2017 $46 $43 $3 $46

$33 2018 $39 $33 $6 $39

-$104

-$9

$21

$34

$16

$12

$5

$3

$6

-$10

- Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions, TAS TAS Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions by investment period TAS - Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions,

BY INVESTMENT PERIOD by investment period $600 $600 $500 $500 $400 $400 $300 $300 $200 $200 $100 $100 $-$100$-$100 -$200 Public Schools-$200

Pre-BER (2009)

BER Total

Post BER Total

10 Year Total

All Private Schools Public Schools Private vs Public All Private Schools

$79 Pre-BER (2009) $69 $79 -$10 $69

$295 BER Total $203 $295 -$92 $203

$177 Post BER Total $253 $177 $76 $253

$552 10 Year Total $525 $552 -$27 $525

Private vs Public

-$10

-$92

$76

-$27

Ratio of Inequity (ROI) Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

70

26

Ratio of Inequity (ROI) DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam School Rorris TAS Private Investment per Student TAS - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) as a MultiplePrivate of Public School Investment School Investment per Student as a Multiple ofTAS Public School Investment per Student - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Private School Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School Investment per Student

PER STUDENT 30.0

25.3

Annual Annual investment investment in private in private schools/schools/ annual annual investment in public investment inschools public schools

30.0 25.0

25.3 25.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

9.2 9.2 4.1 1.9 1.9 2009 2009

2.0

1.1

4.1

3.6 3.6

2.7

2.5

2.9

2.7

2.5

2.9

1.1 2010

2.0 2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

0.0

TAS Annual Capital Investment Schools TAS - Annual Capital Investment in in Schools, $ per student TAS - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student

$ PER STUDENT

$5,000 $4,500 $5,000 $4,000 $4,500 $3,500 $4,000 $3,000 $3,500 $2,500 $3,000 $2,000 $2,500 $1,500 $2,000 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $1,000 $$500

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$All Private Public Gap per Student Funding

$1,555

$4,138

$1,437

$132

$64

$407

$427

$809

$736

$559

2009 $2,963 $1,555 $1,407

2010 $4,590 $4,138 $452

2011 $2,803 $1,437 $1,366

2013 $1,625 $64 $1,561

2014 $1,662 $407 $1,255

2015 $1,554 $427 $1,126

2016 $2,184 $809 $1,375

2017 $1,875 $736 $1,139

2018 $1,596 $559 $1,037

All Private

$2,963

$4,590

$2,803

2012 $1,213 $132 $1,082 $1,213

$1,625

$1,662

$1,554

$2,184

$1,875

$1,596

Funding Gap per Student

$1,407

$452

$1,366

$1,082

$1,561

$1,255

$1,126

$1,375

$1,139

$1,037

Public

Capital Investment Gap Capital Investment Gap

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

71

Capital Investment Gap DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

TAS Investment Gap for Public Schools TAS - Investment Gap for Public Schools, TAS - Investment for Public $ Million Under Investment perSchools, Year $ MILLION UNDER INVESTMENT PERGap YEAR $ Million Under Investment per Year $ Million in Under-Investment $ Million in Under-Investment for for Public Schools Public Schools

$100 $100 $90 $90 $80 $80 $70 $70 $60 $60 $50 $50 $40 $40 $30 $30 $20 $20 $10 $10 $$Capital Investment Gap Million Capital $Investment Gap $ Million

2009 2009 $72 $72

2010 2010 $23 $23

2011 2011 $72 $72

2012 2012 $61 $61

2013 2013 $88 $88

2014 2014 $74 $74

2015 2015 $66 $66

2016 2016 $81 $81

2017 2017 $67 $67

2018 2018 $61 $61

TAS Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools TAS - Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools, COMPARISONS BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) TAS - Annual Investment Gap for Comparisons

by Period ($ Public Million)Schools, Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ Million $ Million in Under-Investment in Under-Investment for for Public Schools Public Schools

$80 $80 $70 $70 $60 $60 $50 $50 $40 $40 $30 $30 $20 $20 $10 $10 $$Average Annual Gap, $ Million Average Annual Gap, $ Million

72

Pre BER (2009) Pre BER $72(2009)

BER Average (2010-12) BER Average $52 (2010-12)

Post BER Average(2013-18) Post BER Average(2013-18) $70

$72

$52

$70

DRAFT DRAFT VERSION VERSION 1 1 –– Adam Adam Rorris Rorris

TAS Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools TAS TAS Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million),

Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million), COMPARISONS BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) Comparisons by Period ($ Million) Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ $Million MillionininUnder-Investment Under-Investment forPublic PublicSchools Schools for

$700 $700 $600 $600 $500 $500 $400 $400 $300 $300 $200 $200 $100 $100 $$-

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total 10 Year Total

BER Period Total (2010-12) BER Period Total (2010-12)

$72 $72

$666 $666

$156 $156

Post BER period Total Post BER period Total (2013-18) (2013-18) $438 $438

BER Period Total BER Period Total (2010-12) (2010-12) $2,899 $2,899

Post BER period Total Post BER period Total (2013-18) (2013-18) $7,493 $7,493

Cumulative Investment Gap Cumulative Investment Gap

TAS Cumulative Investment Gap

TAS - Cumulative Investment Gap,

TAS - Cumulative Investment Gap, $ PER STUDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS $ per Student for Public Schools $ per Student for Public Schools

$ $per perStudent StudentUnder-Investment Under-Investment for forPublic PublicSchools Schools

$14,000 $14,000 $12,000 $12,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 $8,000 $6,000 $6,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 $$Cumulative Investment Gap per Student Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009)

10 Year Total 10 Year Total

$1,407 $1,407

$11,799 $11,799

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

73

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Australian Capital Territory

Australian Capital Territory Australian Capital Territory Investment AnnualAnnual Capital Capital Investment Annual Capital Investment

ACT Annual Capital Investment in Schools ACT - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

$ MILLIONS

ACT - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions $200 $200 $150 $150 $100 $100 $50 $50 $$-$50 -$50 -$100

Public Schools-$100

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$112 2009 $53 $112

$148 2010 $99 $148

$122 2011 $64 $122

$53 2012 $59 $53

$87 2013 $70 $87

$55 2014 $52 $55

$41 2015 $46 $41

$33 2016 $38 $33

$40 2017 $55 $40

-$49 $99

-$58 $64

$6$59

-$17 $70

-$3 $52

$4$46

$5$38

$15 $55

$83 2018 $68 $83 -$16 $68

-$49

-$58

$6

-$17

-$3

$4

$5

$15

-$16

AllPublic Private Schools Schools Private vs Public All Private Schools -$59 $53 Private vs Public

-$59

ACTACT Annual Capital in Schools $ millions - Annual Capital Investment inInvestment Schools $ millions, by investment period ACT - Annual Capital Investment in Schools $ millions,

BY INVESTMENT PERIOD by investment period $1,000 $1,000 $800 $800 $600 $600 $400 $400 $200 $200 $$-$200 -$200 -$400 -$400 Public Schools AllPublic Private Schools Schools Private vs Public All Private Schools Private vs Public

74

Pre-BER (2009)

BER Total

Post BER Total

10 Year Total

$112 (2009) Pre-BER $53 $112

$323Total BER $222 $323

$339 Post BER Total $328 $339

10$774 Year Total $603 $774

-$59 $53

-$101 $222

-$11 $328

-$171 $603

-$59

-$101

-$11

-$171

30 30

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

ACT Private Ratio of Inequity (ROI) School Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School ACT - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Investment Private School Investment per Student as a - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Multiple of ACT Public School Investment per Student Private School Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School Investment per Student

PER STUDENT 2.5

investment in private schools/ AnnualAnnual investment in private schools/ investment in public schools annualannual investment in public schools

2.5

2.1

2.0

2.1 1.7

2.0

1.6

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1.1 0.9

1.0 1.0

0.6

0.5

0.6

1.7

1.6

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.1 0.7

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.0 0.0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

ACT Annual Capital Investment in Schools ACT - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student ACT - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student

$ PER STUDENT $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $$-$1,000 -$1,000 -$2,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

All Private Public Funding Gap per Student All Private

$3,317 2009 $2,048 $3,317 -$1,270 $2,048

$4,355 2010 $3,860 $4,355 -$495 $3,860

$3,556 2011 $2,427 $3,556 -$1,129 $2,427

$1,497 2012 $2,213 $1,497 $715 $2,213

$2,397 2013 $2,592 $2,397 $195 $2,592

$1,492 2014 $1,901 $1,492 $409 $1,901

$1,069 2015 $1,667 $1,069 $599 $1,667

$816 2016 $1,372 $816 $557 $1,372

$971 2017 $1,992 $971 $1,020 $1,992

$1,940 2018 $2,444 $1,940 $504 $2,444

Funding Gap per Student

-$1,270

-$495

-$1,129

$715

$195

$409

$599

$557

$1,020

$504

Public

-$2,000

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

75

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Capital Investment Gap

Capital Investment Gap

ACT Investment Gap for Public Schools ACT - Investment Gap for Public Schools,

$ MILLION UNDER INVESTMENT PER Investment YEAR $ Million Under per Year $$Million Millionin inUnder-Investment Under-Investmentfor for PublicSchools Schools Public

$50 $50 $40 $40 $30 $30 $20 $20 $10 $10 $$-$10 -$10 -$20 -$20 -$30 -$30 -$40 -$40 -$50 -$50

2009 2009

2010 2010

2011 2011

2012 2012

2013 2013

2014 2014

2015 2015

2016 2016

2017 2017

2018 2018

-$43 -$43

-$17 -$17

-$39 -$39

$25 $25

$7 $7

$15 $15

$23 $23

$22 $22

$42 $42

$22 $22

Capital Capital Investment Investment Gap Gap $ $ Million Million

ACT Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools COMPARISONS BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) ACT- Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools, Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$$Million Millionin inUnder-Investment Under-Investment for forPublic PublicSchools Schools

$30 $30 $20 $20 $10 $10 $$-$10 -$10 -$20 -$20 -$30 -$30 -$40 -$40 -$50 -$50 Average Average Annual Annual Gap, Gap, $ $ Million Million

76

Pre Pre BER BER (2009) (2009) -$43 -$43

BER Average Average (2010-12) (2010-12) BER -$10 -$10

Post BER BER Average(2013-18) Average(2013-18) Post $25 $25

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

ACT Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ACT ACT Cumulative Investment Gap for- Public Schools ($ million),

Investment Gap Public Schools ($ million), Comparisons by for Period ($ Million) COMPARISONSCumulative

BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ Million $ Million in Under-Investment in Under-Investment Public Schools for for Public Schools

$160 $160 $140 $140 $120 $120 $100 $100 $80 $80 $60 $60 $40 $40 $20 $20 $$-$20 -$20 -$40 -$40 -$60 -$60

Cumulative Investment Gap Cumulative Investment Gap

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) -$43 -$43

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $58 $58

BER Period Total (2010-12) BER Period Total (2010-12) -$30 -$30

Post BER period Total (2013-18) Post BER period Total (2013-18) $132 $132

ACT Cumulative Investment Gap ACT - Cumulative Investment Gap, ACT - Cumulative Gap, $ per Student forInvestment Public Schools

$ per $ per Student Student Under-Investment Under-Investment for for Public Schools Public Schools

$ PER STUDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS $ per Student for Public Schools $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $$-$1,000 -$1,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 Cumulative Investment Gap per Student Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) -$1,270 -$1,270

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $1,106 $1,106

BER Period Total BER(2010-12) Period Total (2010-12) -$908 -$908

Post BER period Total (2013-18) Post BER period Total (2013-18) $3,284 $3,284

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

77

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Northern Territory Northern Northern TerritoryTerritory

Annual Capital Investment

Annual Capital Investment Annual Capital Investment

NT Annual Capital Investment in Schools NTNT-in Schools, $ millions Annual Capital Investment Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ millions

$ MILLIONS

$150 $150 $100 $100 $50 $50 $-

$-

-$50 -$50 -$100 -$100 2009 2009 Public Schools $40 Public Schools $40 All Private Schools $49 All Private Schools $49 Private vs Public $9 Private vs Public $9

2010 2010 $126 $126 $57 $57 -$69 -$69

2011 2011 $66 $66 $33 $33 -$32 -$32

2012 2012 $27 $27 $30 $30 $4 $4

2013 2013 $20 $20 $15 $15 -$5 -$5

2014 2014 $13 $13 $27 $27 $15 $15

2015 2015 $28 $28 $37 $37 $9 $9

2016 2016 $52 $52 $29 $29 -$23 -$23

2017 2017 $42 $42 $18 $18 -$24 -$24

2018 2018 $55 $55 $45 $45 -$10 -$10

NT Annual CapitalNTInvestment in Schools $ millions NT in - Schools $ millions, Annual Capital Investment

BY INVESTMENT PERIOD Annual Capital Investmentperiod in Schools $ millions, by investment by investment period

$500 $500 $400 $400 $300 $300 $200 $200 $100 $100 $-

$-

-$100 -$100 -$200 -$200 Public Schools Public Schools All Private Schools All Private Schools Private vs Public Private vs Public

78

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) $40 $40 $49 $49 $9 $9

BER Total BER Total $218 $218 $121 $121 -$97 -$97

Post BER Total Post BER Total $210 $210 $171 $171 -$38 -$38

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $468 $468 $341 $341 -$127 -$127

34 34

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

DRAFT VERSION 1 – Adam Rorris

Ratio of Inequity (ROI) NT Private School Investment per Student Ratio of Inequity (ROI)

as a Multiple of Public School NT - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Investment Private School Investment per Student as a NT - ROI (Ratio of Inequity) Multiple of Public School Investment per Student Private School Investment per Student as a Multiple of Public School Investment per Student

PER STUDENT 6.0

5.5

6.0

5.5

Annual investment in private schools/ Annual investment in private schools/ annual investment in public schools annual investment in public schools

5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0

3.0

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.2

1.9

2.0

1.4

1.3

2.0

2.2

1.3

1.4

1.3

1.0

1.9

1.1

1.3

1.1

1.0 0.0 0.0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

NT Annual Capital Investment in Schools NT - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student NT - Annual Capital Investment in Schools, $ per student

$ PER STUDENT $6,000 $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $-

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

All Private Public Funding Gap per Student All Private

$1,493 2009 $4,920 $1,493 $3,427 $4,920

$4,498 2010 $5,679 $4,498 $1,181 $5,679

$2,353 2011 $3,308 $2,353 $955 $3,308

$957 2012 $2,947 $957 $1,990 $2,947

$716 2013 $1,392 $716 $676 $1,392

$445 2014 $2,462 $445 $2,017 $2,462

$1,014 2015 $3,249 $1,014 $2,235 $3,249

$1,836 2016 $2,475 $1,836 $639 $2,475

$1,455 2017 $1,643 $1,455 $188 $1,643

$1,901 2018 $4,155 $1,901 $2,254 $4,155

Funding Gap per Student

$3,427

$1,181

$955

$1,990

$676

$2,017

$2,235

$639

$188

$2,254

Public

$-

Capital Investment Gap Capital Investment Gap ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

79

Capital Investment Gap DRAFT DRAFTVERSION VERSION11––Adam AdamRorris Rorris

NT Investment Gap for Public Schools NT NT--Investment InvestmentGap Gapfor forPublic PublicSchools, Schools,

$$Million $ MILLION UNDER INVESTMENT PERInvestment YEAR per MillionUnder Under Investment perYear Year MillionininUnder-Investment Under-Investmentfor for $$Million PublicSchools Schools Public

$100 $100 $90 $90 $80 $80 $70 $70 $60 $60 $50 $50 $40 $40 $30 $30 $20 $20 $10 $10 $$-

Capital Investment Gap Capital Investment Gap $ Million $ Million

2009 2009

2010 2010

2011 2011

2012 2012

2013 2013

2014 2014

2015 2015

2016 2016

2017 2017

2018 2018

$92 $92

$33 $33

$27 $27

$56 $56

$19 $19

$57 $57

$62 $62

$18 $18

$5 $5

$66 $66

NT Annual Investment Gap for Public Schools NT Investment COMPARISONS BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) NT--Annual Annual InvestmentGap Gapfor forPublic PublicSchools, Schools, Comparisons Comparisonsby byPeriod Period($ ($Million) Million)

MillionininUnder-Investment Under-Investment $$Million forPublic PublicSchools Schools for

$100 $100 $90 $90 $80 $80 $70 $70 $60 $60 $50 $50 $40 $40 $30 $30 $20 $20 $10 $10 $$Average Annual Gap, $ Million Average Annual Gap, $ Million

80

Pre BER (2009) Pre BER (2009) $92 $92

BER Average (2010-12) BER Average (2010-12) $38 $38

Post BER Average(2013-18) Post BER Average(2013-18) $42 $42

DRAFT DRAFT VERSION VERSION 1 1 –– Adam Adam Rorris Rorris

NT Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools NT -

NT COMPARISONS BY PERIOD ($ MILLION) Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million), Cumulative Investment Gap for Public Schools ($ million), Comparisons by Period ($ Million) Comparisons by Period ($ Million)

$ Million $ Million inin Under-Investment Under-Investment forfor Public Schools Public Schools

$500 $500 $450 $450 $400 $400 $350 $350 $300 $300 $250 $250 $200 $200 $150 $150 $100 $100 $50 $50 $$-

Cumulative Investment Gap Cumulative Investment Gap

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) $92 $92

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $434 $434

BER Period Total (2010-12) BER Period Total (2010-12) $115 $115

Post BER period Total Post BER period Total (2013-18) (2013-18) $227 $227

NT Cumulative Investment Gap NT - Cumulative Investment Gap, NT - Cumulative Investment Gap, $ per Student for Public Schools

$ per Student for Public Schools $ PER STUDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

$ per $ per Student Student Under-Investment Under-Investment Public Schools forfor Public Schools

$18,000 $18,000 $16,000 $16,000 $14,000 $14,000 $12,000 $12,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 $8,000 $6,000 $6,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 $$Cumulative Investment Gap per Student Cumulative Investment Gap per Student

Pre-BER (2009) Pre-BER (2009) $3,427 $3,427

10 Year Total 10 Year Total $15,562 $15,562

BER Period Total BER(2010-12) Period Total (2010-12) $4,125 $4,125

Post BER period Total Post BER period Total (2013-18) (2013-18) $8,009 $8,009

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

81

References

Abramson, P., (2008), 2008 Annual School Construction Report, School Planning and Management, USA Department for education and skills, (2005) , Extended Schools Prospectus - Designing schools for extended services, London Edwards, B. (2006), ‘Environmental design and educational performance, with particular reference to `green’ schools in Hampshire and Essex’, Research in Education, Manchester University Press

82

Edwards, B. (2003), Green Buildings Pay, London: Spon Press.

Fisher, K. (2001) Building Better Outcomes: The Impact of School Infrastructure on Student Outcomes and Behaviour. DETYA Kats, G. C. (2003), Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massport MA: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative MCEETYA, (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005), National Report on Schooling in Australia, Curriculum Corporation

OECD, (2015), Universal Basic Skills: What countries stand to gain Pricewaterhouse Cooper’s (2003), Building better performance: an empirical assessment of the learning and other impacts of schools capital investment, London: DFES, Pricewaterhouse Cooper’s (2005), Academies Evaluation, second annual report, London: DFES

Schneider, M. (2003) Linking School Facility Conditions to Teacher Satisfaction and Success, Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

ADAM RORRIS | APRIL 2021

83

ADAM RORRIS

Adam Rorris is an education economist and policy analyst working extensively in Australia and overseas. He has worked for the World Bank, UNICEF, UNESCO, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and other international agencies to help develop robust funding systems for national school systems throughout Asia and the Pacific. During 2002-2007 Adam worked as the Manager/Principal Analyst of the Schools Resourcing Taskforce for the Ministerial Council of Australian Education Ministers.

He has worked with all state and Commonwealth departments of education as well as representatives of the nongovernment school sector.