In 2019, all governments across Australia committed to the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration, pledging to ensure excellence and equity in education systems. The distribution of school funding is key to achieving this goal. Well-resourced schools enhance student connectedness and belonging. However, Australia is internationally recognised as having a very inequitable education system. Schools with high proportions of disadvantaged students require more funding to provide equitable opportunities. If the allocation of funding does not address inequalities in social, cultural and economic resources, students will experience inequity. Although inequality in educational achievement and attainment cannot be eliminated, inequity in school funding, and thus educational opportunities, can be.

Examinations of school funding currently focus on academic outcomes rather than on the levels of resources available within schools to engage students across a broader range of school activities and to remain connected to school. School connectedness refers to the extent to which students feel that they are valued and cared for in their school community (that is by school leaders, teachers and other students). With apparent retention rates declining from 84.8% in 2017 to 79.1% in 2023 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024), school connectedness is an important issue. A good school, and therefore a school of choice, is one that students want to actively participate in and to which they feel connected.

This study seeks to investigate how inequity in school funding affects student outcomes and is guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of students attending schools receiving relatively lower levels of funding?
2. How does receiving relatively lower levels of funding impact on the decision-making processes of school leaders? 
3. How do school leaders prioritise competing demands to maximise opportunities to enhance students’ levels of school connectedness?

The theoretical framework underpinning this study draws on theories of social justice (Fraser 2003); theories explaining how education systems reproduce social, cultural and economic inequalities (Bourdieu 1986); and theories related to school connectedness (Waters et al. 2009). The overarching premise is that levels of school funding determine levels of resources, thus structuring the formal and informal learning opportunities available to students. Providing a variety of opportunities may encourage at-risk students to stay connected to their school communities.

 This study will provide insights into how the distribution of school funding impacts on school communities. Expected outcomes include an evidence base for school funding policies at national and state levels. This study will contribute to an improved understanding of the impact of school funding policies on students and provide recommendations for building equity into the funding of education systems. Ensuring that all young people have opportunities to develop the skills they require to be active citizens in their communities is one of the cornerstones of democracy. Thus, equity in education is an international issue that has become increasingly important.

The methodology used in this mixed method study includes: 1. A comprehensive literature review across three interrelated fields i.e., school funding, leadership and connectedness; 2. A thematic analysis of relevant government policy documents; 3. A statistical analysis of school profiles and school finance data from ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). 4. Semi-structured interviews with school leaders and teachers from schools that are identified as being relatively underfunded to discuss the competing demands of their school community, how they prioritise the allocation of funding and how these decisions impact on students’ levels of school connectedness.

This study highlighted a number of outcomes of inequitable school funding, for example, how inequities in funding impact on school communities in terms of their ability to attract and retain experienced leaders and teachers and to provide students with the extra-curricular activities known to encourage stronger levels of school connectedness. Students who feel connected to their school community are less likely to drop out of school and are less likely to suffer from poor mental health. The study also provides an evidence base to inform debate about funding schools on the basis of need rather than on politics

• ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (2023). National study of mental health and wellbeing. www.abs.gov.au/statistics. • ABS. (2024). Schools. www.abs.gov.au/statistics. • ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2024). MySchool. www.myschool.edu.au • APH (Australian Parliament House). (2024). Chapter 6 Counting the votes. www.aph.gov.au. • Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood Press. • Chesters, J. & Wyn, J. (2019). Chasing rainbows: How many educational qualifications do young people need to acquire meaningful, ongoing work? Journal of Sociology, 55(4), 670-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319888285 • DoE (Department of Education). (2019). The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration. https://www.education.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/resources/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration. • Fraser, N. (2003). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. In N. Fraser & A. Honneth (Eds.). Redistribution or Recognition: A political-philosophical exchange (pp.7-110). Verso. • Gowing, A. (2019). Peer-peer relationships: A key factor in enhancing school connectedness and belonging. Educational and Child Psychology, 36(2), 64-77. • Koh, H.H., Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Ang, L.L. (2011). How school leaders perceive the leadership role of middle leaders in Singapore primary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12, 609-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9161-1 • Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., Tabor, J., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R. E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, L. H., & Udry, J. R. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823–832. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.278.10.823 • Waters, S., Cross, D., & Runions, K. (2009). Social and ecological structures supporting adolescent connectedness to school: A theoretical model. Journal of School Health, 79(11), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00443.x