A growing number of studies show that Australia’s education system is in urgent need of reform. With one of the most socially segregated school systems in the developed world, the gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students continue to widen—impacting academic achievement, wellbeing and long-term life outcomes.
While successive governments have launched reviews and inquiries into the issue, structural reform remains to be seen.
However, a new report from points to a path forward, drawing inspiration from Canada’s education model.
Based on a landmark study tour of Ontario, the Australian Learning Lecture report reveals how needs-based funding, inclusive enrolment, and a common framework across all sectors can deliver both equity and excellence.
What the study found
Pointing to Ontario’s sector-blind, needs-based funding model as a blueprint for Australia, the report’s authors say that with the right structures, regulations and funding in place, Australia can build an equal school system.
In Ontario, all publicly funded schools—whether secular or faith-based—operate under a common legislative and financial framework, are prohibited from charging fees, and must accept students of all backgrounds and abilities. This approach has reduced social segregation, lifted student achievement, and enjoyed broad political and community support.
By contrast, Australia’s three-tiered system entrenches inequality and limits opportunity, the report says.
In their research, the report’s co-authors Tom Greenwell and Chris Bonnor, found that Ontario’s fair, inclusive school system is not only possible—it works.
All the province’s schools, including faith-based ones, operate under a common framework that funds schools based on student need, not sector, making the system equitable, effective, and affordable.
Meanwhile, Quebec faces challenges similar to Australia’s, but parents there are pushing for a more inclusive system.
In British Columbia, some fee regulations exist, but inequities still persist. Overall, the report shows that Canada is doing a better job at building schools where every child—regardless of background—has the chance to thrive in their local community.
Shifting the focus from marketing to pedagogy
Greenwell said the report’s findings have some big implications for education policymakers and school leaders in Australia, which he said can learn from Ontario’s model, which shows that when schools are resourced equitably, they’re better positioned to serve all students, regardless of background.
“Australian principals are so often in the unenviable position of having to perform the dual role of educational leader and chief marketing officer,” Greenwell told The Educator. “This is especially difficult for principals who have fewer resources to accomplish a more challenging educational task than neighbouring schools.”
Greenwell said the Ontario model shifts the focus of principals from marketing to pedagogy; from sorting human talent to developing human potential.
“Because all schools are resourced according to need and regulated on the same basis, enrolment competition is less fierce and much fairer,” he said. “This means school leaders spend less energy on recruiting the ‘right’ students and have the time and space to focus on building up the students in front of them.”
Making school a place for everyone
Another key challenge Australian leaders continue to face is navigating sector-based competition, which is often tied to enrolment, funding and performance pressures.
When asked what lessons he observed in Ontario about how school leaders maintain their school’s distinct identity and appeal without resorting to exclusionary practices or fee-based strategies, Greenwell pointed to Ontario schools that build distinctiveness through inclusive ethos and curriculum – faith traditions, French-language pathways, or a forward-leaning stance on AI – rather than fees or selective enrolment.
“For Notre Dame High in Ottawa the absence of exclusionary practices and fees is actually essential to its distinctive identity,” Greenwell said.
“The school’s motto is ‘a place for everyone’ and you only have to look at the range of initiatives they’ve introduced to support their very disadvantaged student community to see that they walk the talk.”
Greenwell noted that for Notre Dame High’s school community, there is also a faith element to this – religious studies, a prayer on the loudspeaker every morning, services in the chapel.
“In other parts of Ontario, it’s the French-language curriculum that defines the school community. In other schools, the unique identity might be something different altogether: approaching AI as an opportunity to be exploited as much as a threat to be minimised, for example,” he said.
“In Ontario schools are unique because they have a distinctive ethos or curriculum, but not because they benefit from better resourcing or exclude children facing greater challenges.”
Collaboration thrives when competition doesn’t
Australia’s education system often puts principals in government schools under growing pressure to compensate for structural inequities, adding to the stress of a profession already in crisis.
The study’s co-author, Chris Bonnor, says while Australia has always had cross-sectoral professional bodies and collaboration at different levels, our unlevel ‘playing field’ on which our schools compete undermines professional trust and collaboration.
“In Ontario we didn’t see evidence of ongoing antagonism between secular and Catholic schools or boards,” Bonnor told The Educator. “The problems they have are overwhelmingly problems they have in common, and their solutions are shared.”
Bonnor said emerging issues are much easier to deal with because the rules and obligations are the same for all publicly funded schools.
“If we get that right in Australia, the rest will follow.”
When asked what he learned from the study about teacher workload, collaboration and professional learning that could inform how Australian systems better support teachers in diverse and inclusive classrooms, Bonnor pointed to Ontario’s equitable system of needs-based funding, which he said reduces the extent of concentrated disadvantage.
“The obligations and rules that come with the funding ensure that such concentrations are minimised. Accordingly the responsibility for lifting the strugglers is more evenly spread,” he said.
“In contrast, some of our teachers, far more than others, bear the brunt of concentrated disadvantage – partly as a consequence of the unlevel playing field.”
Bonnor said while there are many ways Australian systems can better support teachers, the priority should be to create more diverse and inclusive classrooms.
“Unless the equity gaps between schools are reduced the benefits of any support will be limited.”