Skip to content
The guidelines highlight that student family background has a significant impact on student achievement. However, DET has continued funding facilitation and reward payments. The funding agreements set out the types or purpose of expenditure for which the funds may be used.There is significant variation in the management practices of different schools and overall they lack policies and procedures to demonstrate the effective use of state government grants. This structural separation of responsibilities is important because it reduces the conflict of interest that would occur were the Department to be responsible for regulating non- government schools while also providing a competitor product. Altogether, VAGO's limited scope has led to a report which is incomplete and therefore misleading. These rates are weighted for both a primary/secondary split and for the stage of schooling—which considers the relative average recurrent cost of educating a student in each year level in a Victorian government school. The Department of Education & Training (DET) determines these allocations using its Financial Assistance Model (FAM), which comprises core funding and equity funding.
The overall effect of the CECV distribution methodology is that some Catholic schools receive substantially more than they would receive under DET's allocation and some substantially less. With a broader, more appropriate scope many of the concerns and issues raised by VAGO would have been substantially addressed.My office has previously responded to CECV on these issues noting that the argument the audit scope was 'too narrow' is not soundly based.
While funding agreements outline that the state respects the independence of non-government schools and systems who determine their own priorities, taxpayers, parents of students at non-government schools and the broader community are entitled to expect that funds are used transparently and that the Department of Education & Training (DET), non-government schools and their system administrators are effectively and efficiently managing the use of grants.The Catholic Education Commission Victoria (CECV) reallocates over $400 million in recurrent grants to Catholic schools using its own methodology. However, the 2016 MoU includes a commitment to participate in the Education State vision and directions, and recognises that targets apply to all students in all school sectors.
Four schools relied on 'verbal' processes.Nearly all of the sampled schools (21 of 22) had budgets in place to ensure grants were spent or committed in the relevant year. While all individual schools we tested had an auditor's report stating SRG funds were expended for the purposes for which they were provided, no school was able to demonstrate to VAGO that SRG funds were spent in full accordance with the agreement.
It is DET should clarify any conditions and reporting requirements associated with the reallocation of the state recurrent grant.We tested the SRG amounts received by six Catholic schools against allocations from CECV, and were able to reconcile these amounts.SWD funding must be used to support SWDs, although the funding does not need to be linked or allocated to individual students.
There is no primary/secondary weighting applied to this element of funding. CECV distributes these grants to Catholic schools, and ISV and VIS BGA distribute them to all other non-government schools. The recurrent grant funds to Catholic schools are reallocated to individual schools by the CECV using its own methodology. It is solely a result of CECV's own reallocation methodology.In its report VAGO concludes that 'non-government schools do not have systems and processes to ensure grants are used for their intended purpose' (which excludes capital purposes).
This assertion is baseless and reflects a serious misunderstanding of the context of my audit and mandate.At the outset of this audit – before any substantive work had commenced – the former Auditor-General stated in the media, in relation to grants to non-government schools, that 'there is quite limited accountability coming back the other way as to what the money was used for, how it was used, and whether it was effective'. Evidence provided by the two schools that met this test were:Four schools were able to provide a sufficiently detailed general ledger, but were not able to provide documentation to verify the expenditure.