NSW Public School Funding Gaps: Why Wealthy Schools Get More Per Student

The Funding Formula Nobody Wants to Talk About

If you asked most Australians whether wealthy schools should receive more government funding per student than low-income schools, the answer would be an overwhelming no. Yet that is effectively what happens across New South Wales - and has for decades.

This isn't a simple story about private versus public schools, though that dimension exists too. The more surprising and less-discussed problem is the funding gap within the NSW public school system itself, where the way money is allocated consistently advantages schools in wealthier areas over those serving disadvantaged communities.

How the Gap Works

NSW public school funding flows through several streams, and the formula sounds neutral on paper. But the outcomes are anything but.

The Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) - the benchmark introduced after the 2011 Gonski Review - was designed to ensure every student receives a minimum level of funding, with loadings on top for disadvantage, disability, English proficiency, and remoteness. Australia-wide, the federal government was supposed to reach 20% of the SRS for public schools, with states covering the remaining 80%.

NSW has never fully met its SRS obligations. According to the Australian Education Union, NSW public schools were funded at approximately 90–95% of the SRS benchmark for several recent years, meaning a structural shortfall was baked in before a single dollar reached a classroom.

But here's where it gets more specific to the within-system gap:

• Staffing allocation formulas historically rewarded schools with more experienced - and therefore more expensive - teachers on their rolls. Wealthier, more established schools in Sydney's eastern suburbs or North Shore tend to retain experienced staff longer, attracting a higher salary cost that is funded centrally. The school doesn't pay the salary difference, the department does - but this inflates the effective per-student spend at those schools.
• Capital investment has skewed toward high-enrolment growth corridors in outer suburbs and regional areas, but maintenance and infrastructure upgrades have disproportionately benefited established schools with active and politically connected P&C communities.
• Selective schools, which draw academically high-performing students (who statistically come from higher-income families at a greater rate), receive the same base per-student funding as comprehensive schools but face fewer of the complex learning needs that require additional specialist resources.

A 2022 analysis by the Grattan Institute found that the most disadvantaged Australian students receive only around 2–3% more funding per student than the least disadvantaged, despite research consistently showing that genuinely closing the gap requires funding loadings of 20% or more above the baseline.

The Private School Dimension

The within-public-system gap is compounded by how state and federal governments treat private schools.

In NSW, some of the wealthiest independent schools - schools with fee structures exceeding $40,000 per year - still receive thousands of dollars per student in government funding. The federal government's own data shows that in 2022, several high-fee independent schools received between $3,000 and $8,000 per student in Commonwealth funding alone.

Meanwhile, public schools serving communities where median household incomes sit below $60,000 per year operate with counsellors shared across multiple campuses, crumbling demountable classrooms, and teacher vacancies that go unfilled for months.

Note: Figures are indicative based on published federal and state budget data and vary significantly by school.

Why Does This Policy Persist?

This is the critical question. The evidence for needs-based funding is overwhelming. The Gonski Review said it clearly in 2011. Subsequent reviews have confirmed it. So why, more than a decade later, are we still having the same conversation?

The blunt answer is political incentives.

Parents at well-resourced schools - both public and private - are disproportionately likely to be engaged voters, donors, and community influencers. They have P&C committees, they write to their local members, and they notice when funding formulas change. The families most harmed by underfunding are often the least politically organised - working multiple jobs, navigating housing insecurity, or simply not aware of the bureaucratic levers being pulled.

Both Labor and the Coalition have failed here. The federal Coalition government between 2014 and 2022 repeatedly watered down Gonski recommendations, redirected funding to private schools, and delayed full SRS implementation. The Labor Party, both federally and in NSW, talks the language of equity but has governed for significant stretches without fully funding public schools to the standard its own reviews recommended. The NSW Labor government elected in 2023 inherited the problem and has made incremental commitments, but structural reform remains slow.

The Catholic school lobby and independent school associations are among the most effective education policy influencers in the country. They have direct lines to ministers in both major parties. The public school system, by contrast, relies on unions and advocacy groups who can be politically marginalised when inconvenient.

What the Evidence Actually Shows

The research on funding and outcomes is clear:

• PISA data consistently shows Australia's gap between highest and lowest-performing students is among the widest in the OECD, and it correlates strongly with socioeconomic background.
• The Grattan Institute, the Mitchell Institute, and the Australian Education Research Organisation have all published findings showing that targeted funding increases in disadvantaged schools produce measurable improvements in literacy, numeracy, and Year 12 completion rates.
• A $1,000 increase in per-student annual funding in disadvantaged schools has been associated with meaningful improvements in NAPLAN performance - effects that don't show up in schools already well-resourced.

This is not a case of uncertainty about what works. We know what works. We choose not to do it.

Why Direct Democracy Changes This Equation

Here's the uncomfortable truth about representative democracy in Australia: policies that are broadly unpopular can survive indefinitely if the people who benefit from them have more political access than the people who are harmed.

Funding inequity in NSW schools is a perfect example. Poll after poll shows Australians support needs-based school funding. They support public schools. They believe disadvantaged kids should get more support, not less. But that broad public preference has almost no mechanism to translate into policy - because the people who benefit from the status quo are better organised, better funded, and better connected to the politicians making decisions.

Direct Democracy works differently. When members vote directly on policy - and elected representatives are bound by those votes - the political calculus changes entirely. There's no backroom deal with a private school lobby. There's no quiet ministerial accommodation. There's just the question: what do you actually want?

On school funding, Australians have a pretty clear answer. They just haven't been given a real way to say it.

---

Want a say in policies like this? Direct Democracy puts the vote back in your hands. [Take our 2-minute policy quiz](https://directdemocracy.com.au) to see where you stand on the issues that matter, or join the party and start voting directly on the policies that shape your community. Your voice shouldn't be filtered through a politician's donor list.