‘Dissolution by design’: Gonski school funding and school autonomy reform impacts on English as an additional language/ dialect programs in Australian schools

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Ophelia

In 2011, the Australian Government introduced an equity-badged, needs-based school funding reform alongside national school autonomy reforms that devolved decisions on resourcing, staffing, and service design to principals. This second article examines the “enchanting” policy designs of the Gonski funding and autonomy reforms and how they deregulated, devolved, and dissipated tied specialist EAL/D provision for English language learners. Analysis of ACTA’s 2016 EAL/D Education survey shows autonomy policies eroding conditions for EAL/D program delivery and intensifying micro-political contestation over required specialist expertise.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages32

Reading Time1 h 21 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Literature review and methodology

Analysis and critique of Australian school autonomy reforms

Survey and impact analysis

‘Dissolution by design’: Gonski school funding and school autonomy reform impacts on English as an additional language/ dialect programs in Australian schools Michael Michell School of Education, University of New South Wales, Australia Abstract In 2011, the Australian Government embarked on an equitybadged, ‘needs-based’ school funding reform accompanied by national school autonomy reforms devolving decisions about resourcing, staffing and service design and delivery to school principals. In the second of three articles examining national policy impacts on English as an additional language/ dialect programs in Australian schools, this study examines the‘enchanting’ policy designs of the Gonski funding and national school autonomy reforms that deregulated, devolved and ultimately dissipated tied-funded specialist EAL/D provision for English language learners. Analysis of data from ACTA’s 2016 State of EAL/D Education in Australia survey highlights direct‘on the ground’ impacts of school autonomy policies in eroding the essential conditions for school EAL/D program provision and in intensifying school micro-political contestation around Correspondence Michael Michell [m.michell@unsw.edu.au](m.michell@unsw.edu.au) Publication Received: 28 October 2024 Revision: 03 October 2025 Accepted: 30 November 2025 Published: 15 December 2025 Copyright ©2025 TESOL in Context This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – ShareAlike 4.0 International License. specialist expertise required for effective EAL/D program delivery. The article notes the national advocacy of the Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA) in linking possible EAL/D policy solutions to emergent education policy agendas. The article provides areassessment of the Gonski funding reforms and contributes to a growing critique of school autonomy policies in Australian school education. Keywords: Devolution; EAL/D policy; New Public Management; policy advocacy; policy design; policy streams; school autonomy. Introduction In 2011, the Australian Government embarked on an equity-badged, ‘needs-based’ school funding reform accompanied by national school autonomy reforms aimed at improving student performance and outcomes by devolving resourcing, staffing and service design and delivery decisions to school principals. These reforms reflected the longstanding national policy agenda of broadbanding tied funding of specialist provision for English language learners (Michell, 2025) but now turned to applying the New Public Management (NPM) reform agenda to service design and delivery in schools. The result was the effective sidelining and undermining of English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D) programs in schools.1 This study traces the policy enchantment/displacement agendas, policy streams and designs that inevitably produced these impacts. Literature review and methodology As detailed in the preceding study (Michell, 2025), the policy enchantment/displacement perspective (Moore, 1991), the policy streams (Kingdon, 1984/1995) and New Public Management frameworks (e.g. Dunleavy & Hood, 1994; Fitzgerald & Rainnie, 2012) provide key analytical perspectives tracing the deregulatory agenda in the policy designs ofthe Gonski school funding and school autonomy reforms. This agenda is highlighted through a thematic analysis of key policy documents and texts (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Herzog, et al., 2017) . Analysis of the policy designs ofthe Gonski school funding and school autonomy reforms is informed by new policy design research (Howlett, 2014; Howlett & Mukherjee, 2018a; Peters & Fontaine, 2022; Siddiki, 2020) , specifically, policy design as content as represented in the language of policy texts and interpreted by policy analysts (Siddiki & Curley, 2022) . Analysis of policy content focuses on common policy design elements such as: ‘(i) goals or problems tobe solved; (ii) policy targets, or those whose actions are

FAQs

What reforms were introduced in Australia in 2011 regarding school funding and autonomy?

The Australian Government launched a needs-based, equity-badged school funding reform and national school autonomy reforms. The autonomy reforms devolved decisions about resourcing, staffing, and service design and delivery to school principals.

How did the Gonski funding and school autonomy reforms affect EAL/D specialist provision?

The article argues the policy designs deregulated, devolved, and ultimately dissipated tied-funded specialist EAL/D provision for English language learners. This resulted in the sidelining and undermining of EAL/D programs.

What evidence is used to examine real-world impacts on EAL/D programs?

The study draws on data from ACTA’s 2016 State of EAL/D Education in Australia survey. It highlights on-the-ground effects of autonomy policies and describes intensifying school micro-political contestation.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Ophelia