State school advocates, like the Australian Education Union, are at least consistent when they cite the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's research as evidence that Australia, supposedly, has a poor record when investing in education.

In response to last year's release of the OECD's Education at a Glance 2007, the then union president, Pat Byrne, stated, ''Australia is now lagging badly behind much of the first world on the importance we place funding the education of the next generation''.

Fast forward to the recently released Education at a Glance 2008 and, once again, the argument is that Australia is at the bottom of the table when it comes to educational investment.

The current union president, Angelo Gavrielatos, argues, ''Well, it is a damning report and it's a blight on Australia. The report shows that Australia is now ranked second last when compared to other OECD countries when it comes to public expenditure''.

As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. While it is true that Australian governments spend less on education when compared to other OECD countries, when you add public and private expenditure, the result is far healthier.

In 2005, Australia's public expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product was 4.8 per cent, with the OECD average sitting at 5.4 per cent.

After combining public and private expenditure, the figure for Australia as a percentage of GDP rises to 5.8 per cent, giving Australia a middle ranking with the OECD average also sitting at 5.8 per cent.

Those who refer to the OECD's research as evidence that Australia under-funds education argue that more money will lead to a stronger education system and higher standards. Ignored is that the OECD's report says the opposite.

The 2007 OECD report, when detailing the annual expenditure on education institutions per student, concludes, ''Lower unit expenditure does not necessarily lead to lower achievement and it would be misleading to equate lower unit expenditure generally with lower quality of educational services''.

Based on the data in the 2007 report, Finland and Korea are on or below the OECD average when it comes to cumulative expenditure, but the two countries find themselves at the top of the table as measured by the 2003 Program for International Assessment test.

The 2008 report goes further by arguing that educational institutions need to re-invent themselves and ''provide better value for money'' on the basis that ''there is the potential for increasing learning outcomes by 22 per cent while maintaining current levels of resources''.

The European researcher Ludger Woessmann, after analysing the results of international tests, including the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study and the Program for International Assessment, also concludes that increased investment does not necessarily equate with higher standards.

Woessmann, in a 2006 paper, argues, ''Students in countries with higher spending levels or smaller classes do not tend to perform better than students in less well equipped countries''.

While it might be unsettling to those who argue that increased investment leading to more teachers, smaller classes and better funded government schools will lead to higher standards, Woessmann argues that there are other factors that contribute to improved results.

On analysing the characteristics of those systems that achieve the strongest results in international tests, the German researcher identifies institutional factors such as a strong and robust non-government school sector, schools being autonomous, and the presence of centralised examinations.

Parental choice means that schools, both government and non-government, have to compete for students and there is pressure to achieve strong outcomes.

Freeing schools from the dead hand of a centralised bureaucracy means they are better able to respond to community needs and expectations.

External examinations allow parents, the public and educational authorities to compare and judge school performance with some degree of objectivity, and schools are pressured to do well as the results are public.

On the basis of Education at a Glance 2008, federal Education Minister Julia Gillard has condemned the previous Howard government for under-funding education and stated that the Labor Government will increase expenditure ''right across the board''.

One hopes that the Government's spending will be evidence-based and that Minister Gillard takes note of the OECD's argument that investing more, by itself, will not necessarily lead to improved performance.

Dr Donnelly is director of Melbourne-based Education Strategies and author of Dumbing Down.

Source: canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/new-lessons-to-be-learned/1276951.aspx