Most kids might groan to hear it, but going to school really is the foundation for a prosperous life – a time important enough to be recognised as a universal human right. The words of the 1948 United Nations declaration are worth repeating, not only because Australia is a signatory, but because the aspiration has not changed in the 70 years since they were agreed and remain an essential guide to policy.
"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit."
![Access to education is a fundamental human right.](/web/20161029052253im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/r/s/7/8/3/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.grxk4t.png/1475898984208.jpg)
The declaration continues, urging the spirit of education "be directed to the full development of the human personality", to strengthen and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. "It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups".
And in acknowledgement of the need to shepherd the young through to adulthood, "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
Within these few carefully drafted sentences lies the essence of the vexed and perennial debate about education funding in this country. The goal should be for education to be free. It should be accessible and of hight quality. Parents also deserve the right to a choice.
But these goals can fall into conflict, especially in the weighting given in public funding as compared to what remains private – let's call it commercial – choice. Too much taxpayer money that should be devoted to free (or as close as possible to free) education is being diverted into the realm of private schools, where students are also charged considerable fees.
There are no simple answers to funding education, and it would be foolish to pretend the words of the UN declaration provide anything more than a guide. Access is only guaranteed by sustainability, and the existence of private schools certainly serves to remove a potential burden from the public sector.
Yet it is welcome that Education Minister Simon Birmingham has acknowledged certain wealthy schools may need to have their federal funding reduced under a new model to be introduced in 2018, to ensure a sustainable and quality public education system. His words have prompted a predictable threat from the private schools lobby, warning it is not an "easy target" for cuts. Private schools have every incentive to maintain what are in some instances unhealthy profits by drawing on public coffers.
But what is far more disappointing is the response from Labor, which should be expected to defend the public system. Instead, shadow education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek was quick to imply Senator Birmingham had a "secret hit-list" of schools lined up to cut funding, and ask "which kids will be robbed".
Labor's approach has been contemptible. This same type of crude, inflammatory language was previously deployed by the Howard government in criticising Mark Latham during his stint as Labor leader, to deliberately foster a sense of panic about his plans for education. It might be clever politics, but it is in no way conducive to a sensible debate about funding education.
It was a failing of Julia Gillard to commission the Gonski report but promise no school would be worse off, and to allow generous indexation rates for funding of private schools. If Australia is to maintain access to quality and free education, the goal has to be matched with resources.