The truth is, a lot of people don’t think about how much their child will actually spend on school.
But what they do realise is that, based on how much they spend, their child’s education will be worse off.
That’s because we don’t account for the impact of factors like the age and family composition of parents.
And that can mean, for example, your child is spending a lot more time in primary school than they might otherwise have.
A new study from the University of Western Australia has identified the impact these factors have on children’s school funding.
The study, called The Schoolhouse to Schoolhouse Effect, examined more than 500,000 students aged between two and five in NSW.
The researchers examined how schools were funded across all areas of the state and found that: students who lived in wealthier areas were more likely to attend a school that had fewer resources and that was better equipped to cater to their needs.
Students in poorer areas were also more likely than those in middle and lower income areas to be eligible for free school meals.
Schools that received the least funding were more than twice as likely to have fewer resources, and schools in poorer regions had more students living in low-income areas than those of higher income.
Schools in poorer communities also had a higher proportion of students living with parents who received less than 50 per cent of their income from public assistance.
The report, entitled The Schoolhome to Schoolhomes Effect, found that the average school was spending less than $20,000 a year on primary education, while in wealthier communities, the average was $24,000.
The University of Sydney says the findings highlight the need for parents to be more conscious of how much of their child is being spent on school, and that they need to get a better understanding of how school funding is calculated.
Schools funding ‘exceeds capacity’ in rural NSW The University says the average expenditure per student in rural New South Wales was $2,822 in 2015-16, and is expected to increase by more than $5,000 by 2020-21.
The average expenditure in rural Victoria is estimated to be $2.2 million a year.
The findings from the study suggest that in rural and regional New South Carolina, which has the highest proportion of rural students, primary schools are spending more than 50% of their budget on school services.
This means that the state spends more on schools than it receives in funding from the federal government, the Commonwealth and local government.
The authors say these figures are very troubling because many parents are not aware that their children will be spending more money than they actually will.
For example, the study found that a third of students aged two to five in rural Queensland reported that they have no money left over from their primary school education for the future.
“Schools in rural areas are being funded so much less that it’s difficult for parents and teachers to keep up with the increase in enrolment,” Professor Peter Haines, an economist from the Australian National University, said.
“It’s particularly problematic because primary school enrolment is still relatively low in rural communities, so there are a lot fewer places for young people to start learning and that could have a huge impact on their ability to access a quality education.”
This can lead to the situation where a child doesn’t receive the right education because their family can’t afford to pay for it.
“The impact on families of families who can’t pay for their child to attend school is extremely significant,” he said.
One in five students in rural South Australia reported that their primary schools had already exceeded capacity.
This is because students are more likely in rural families to live in remote areas.
“Many students live with a parent who lives off the grid, so they are often very reliant on food, clothing and school supplies to support them,” Professor Hain.
“As a result, many rural families are often underfunded in their primary education.”
The report found that most rural children in NSW are enrolled in school in the summer months, but there are gaps in their schooling in the winter.
“These families have been unable to afford to have children on a full-time basis in the school year and have been left with very limited options,” Professor Andrew O’Neill, the report’s lead author, said, adding that the lack of schools in remote communities meant that students would not receive the best education.
“We are concerned about the impact this will have on young people, their parents and community support services.”
The authors also said that rural students were more often at risk of bullying than their urban counterparts.
“For children who have been bullied, it can have a profound impact on self-esteem, confidence and behaviour in school,” the report said.
Schools and parents can make some positive changes to their school environment.
Professor O’Malley said parents need to take action and try to understand how their child feels.
“If the school is an absolute disaster, if the