Children with disabilities who fall into Tasmania's ``IQ gap'' could miss out on additional federal education Gonski funding if Premier Lara Giddings signs up but does not raise the IQ cut-off point.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In Tasmania, students with an IQ up to 55 are eligible for the severe disability register.
However, in most other states the IQ cut-off is set at 70, so students elsewhere already get additional funding and stand to get more under the Gonski reforms.
The Tasmanian Disability Education Reform Lobby last week raised concerns about what the Gonski funding would mean for students who fall in the IQ gap.
Tasmania stands to receive an additional $400 million for education over six years in Gonski funding, for a contribution of $140 million if it signs up to the reforms.
According to parliamentary secretary for school education Senator Jacinta Collins, it is up to the state government to alter the current IQ cut-off model.
``Under the new schools funding arrangements, the Tasmanian government will be able to continue to distribute their funding, including funding for students with disability, on a needs basis,'' Ms Collins said.
However, those students not getting additional disability funding would miss out on extra Gonski disability loadings, a spokesman for Ms Collins confirmed.
Reform lobby group spokeswoman Kristen Desmond said the clarification by Ms Collins confirmed their concerns that students who fall in the IQ gap would miss out.
``Gonski will not mean equitable funding for these children because the state government's model of disability funding is completely different to elsewhere - what families would want to be in Tasmania if their kids don't have a chance of a better education,'' Ms Desmond said.
Opposition education spokesman Michael Ferguson said this was a problem of the state government's making.
He said Ms Giddings must define disability in a way that was consistent with the other states.
A spokesman for Ms Giddings said he was seeking further clarification if this would be the case, but that it was not the reason Ms Giddings had not yet agreed to the reforms and that negotiations were continuing.
