A tale of two schools: an education in inequality
It was the best of school funding, it was the worst of school funding.
In one corner of Melbourne, at Presbyterian Ladies’ College (PLC), the sun rose on the bustling construction site of an expansive, state-of-the-art swimming and sports complex. The school’s halls gleamed, echoing with the buzz of students discussing future extracurriculars—swimming lessons in their Olympic-sized pool, dance classes in a dedicated aerobics room, badminton tournaments in a fully reconfigurable gymnasium.
The day started differently in Melbourne’s northern suburbs at a local public secondary college. The sun may have risen, but the mood was subdued. Teachers hurried between classrooms, covering for absent colleagues, their numbers stretched thin as the school faced another day without enough casual relief teachers to fill the gaps. Inclusion aides faced the difficult decision of supporting this student or that one, to assist in this classroom or the other. The ancient photocopier groaned under the strain of last-minute worksheets. There was no swimming pool to speak of, much less an $85 million sports complex.
The chasm between these two schools, separated by geography and a stark disparity in resources and opportunities, is widening. This is the almost Dickensian reality of Victoria’s education system in 2024. While wealthier private schools build new swimming pools and welcome students with an array of luxuries, many public schools are battling to keep the classrooms staffed and students supported.
At PLC, where annual fees hover around $38,000, students enjoy not just the basics but some of the best that education can offer. The new sports complex alone—complete with spectator seating, a gym, spin room and underground parking lot—demonstrates the level of privilege at play. Along with student fees, PLC collects $9.25 million in combined government funding annually. The school offers its students a wealth of extracurricular activities, small class sizes and personalised attention from staff. PLC claims the school’s reserves and donations entirely fund its new swimming pool, but the generous government funding that flows to the school undoubtedly frees resources for such extravagant projects.
Compare this to our secondary college in the northern suburbs, where 64 percent of students come from the bottom quarter of the socioeconomic spectrum and 67 percent speak a language other than English at home. This school faces serious challenges made worse by funding inequality. With a student body of just over a thousand, the school must get by on significantly less than PLC—around $18,600 per student per year when state and federal government funding are combined. Here, classrooms are often overcrowded, and the programs designed to support students with high needs are perpetually underfunded.
The differences between the two schools are not limited to facilities. They reflect broader systemic inequalities that play a crucial role in shaping the future of the students who pass through their doors. In wealthier private schools, students are surrounded by resources that encourage them to excel in both academics and extracurricular activities. Small class sizes and abundant staff ensure that students receive individualised attention, which helps them succeed in exams and ultimately gain entry to elite universities.
In contrast, our public schools are struggling to meet the basic needs of our students. Teachers are overstretched, and schools often lack the resources to retain enough staff or run full-scale literacy and numeracy programs. Students needing extra help may find themselves slipping through the cracks, with fewer academic or personal development opportunities.
The disparity in funding—and, by extension, the quality of education—reinforces pre-existing social inequalities rather than addressing them. While students at wealthier private schools are primed for success, with a network of alumni and well-resourced programs that set them up for high-status careers, students at many public schools face a much steeper climb. Without access to the same level of resources and support, many students from underfunded schools will struggle to break free from the socioeconomic circumstances into which they were born. This situation seems to be by design.
Universal access to education is often hailed as a great equaliser, the force that can lift horizons for students from all walks of life. But in Australia, it is increasingly becoming the opposite: the great reinforcer of socioeconomic hierarchy. The funding model that allows private schools to receive significant government support while public schools languish is a clear example of how education policy can entrench inequality rather than reduce it.
If politicians are serious about providing quality education for all students, this inequality must be reversed. Public schools cannot continue to struggle while private schools flourish. The state and federal governments need to fund public schools fully to meet 100 percent of the Schooling Resource Standard outlined in the Gonski report over a decade ago. And that is just a start.
The growing divide between schools like PLC and this northern suburbs secondary school is not just an issue of fairness—it is an issue of justice. Without urgent action, education in Australia will continue to perpetuate the very inequalities it should be dismantling.
A tale of two schools: an education in inequality
