Victorian Non-Government Schools Funding Agreement

However, this finding appears to support VAGO`s recommendation that the ministry «develop a program of audits of grant recipients and non-public schools to ensure that grants are used as intended. It is not clear how these audits would interact with those already conducted by the Australian government (which validates the data entered in the FQ) and the VRQA (which audits schools to ensure financial sustainability). However, if the department is to obtain this assurance, the best part to give it is the independent auditors who review the graduation certificates every year. There is no need for the Department to implement its own audit program. Overall, the CECV considers this recommendation to be ill-conceived and poorly specified. «At the beginning of this audit – before the start of the substantive work – the former Court of Auditors said in the media regarding subsidies to non-public schools that there is a fairly limited responsibility that goes back the other way, what the money was used for, how it was used and whether it was effective. VAGO has now produced a report in support of these comments. It is difficult not to conclude that the scope was intentionally designed for this purpose, as a wider scope would have called into question many of VAGO`s results. Funding is calculated by multiplying the basic FSO funding rate by a school`s FSO density value and the number of students in the school. No primary or secondary weighting is applied to this funding element. For small schools, a minimum funding amount of $5,500 is applied. In 2015, the initial FSO base rate was $418.86 per student. Private schools are funded at full capacity under the Funding Arrangements proposed by the Commonwealth – in fact, some are already funded beyond this amount.

However, the Commonwealth proposed an agreement that Victorian public schools were not funded at the full SRS level. Three other schools were able to provide proof of expenses, but could not link expenses to the source of funding or prove expenses reported in the general ledger. As shown in Figure 3D, the CEC distributes SRG funds from schools with lower socio-economic status to schools with higher socio-economic status. Overall, schools with the highest socioeconomic status gained an additional 75.14% in student funding with an SFO index below 0.1, while schools with the lowest socioeconomic status lost between 11.35% and 63.33% of their funding with an SFO index of more than 0.4%. Ministries using the VCFA must ensure that eligible agencies meet the above requirements before entering into a funding agreement for children`s services. More information can be found on the Department of Justice and Community Safety website. The audit examined deT`s administration of public and other recurrent subsidies to non-public schools. Compliance with funding agreements and the use of funds by the four authorities of the system, other institutions and a selection of non-public schools were also examined. They provided education to about 334,000 Victorian children, or about 37% of all Victorian students. Non-public schools operate in two ways: through systemic authorities that run multiple schools and as independent, non-systemic schools. In section 3.4.2, the VAGO report raises ambiguities as to whether the Department allows the CECV to reallocate recurring crown grants between systemic schools and implies that the CECV is not accountable or transparent about how it delivers grants.

There are significant differences in management practices in the selection of non-public schools that were tested as part of this audit – overall, they lacked policies and procedures to demonstrate the effective use of government grants. With a few exceptions, they cannot adequately track and demonstrate how grant funds have been spent. Figure 3D of the VAGO report shows data on how the CECV reallocates recurring government grants based on the density of the student family profession (FSO). There is a redistribution from high SFO schools to low SFO schools. This is exclusively a product of the financial assistance model (FAM) structure, which provides a relatively high proportion of funds for expenses in general and disadvantaged family history (CRC) in particular. Figure 1E Recurring government grants paid to each system authority and independent school, 2009 to 2014 As we described in our previous article on funding non-public schools in New South Wales, non-public schools – how can you spend your money? a number of non-public schools, large and small, have recently been examined for their financial operations. Another issue in Section 3.4.2 is the simplistic emphasis on the reallocation of recurring government grants resulting from CECV funding models. VAGO overlooked the considerable and overall benefit offered by the possibility for the CECV to allocate recurrent public subsidies to governments and the Community. This allows the CECV to ensure the viability of the school, which means that there are no unplanned closures of Catholic schools in Victoria. This eliminates one of the greatest risks to the non-governmental educational community. VAGO is aware of this because it pointed out in its specifications that disruption to students and schools caused by unplanned closures of non-public schools was one of the main reasons for the review.

.