请阅读Passage 2，完成第26~30小题。

                                                                                       Passage 2

Julia Gillard,as education minister and then prime rninister,identified the Gonski report on school funding,later renamed the Better Schools Plan,as one of her crowning achievements.Backed by the Australian Edueation Union and Australia's cultural-left education blob(a term coinedbyBritain'sSecre taryofStateforEducation,M ichaeIGove),the argument is tant Gonski will deliver excellence and equity in education by massively increasing govemment expenditure.The Gonski funding model,involving a base level of funding known as a School Resourcing Standard and additional loadings related to disadvantage,is also lauded as brirnging clarity,transparency and consistency to school funding. Not so. As noted by the National Commission of Audit,the flaws and weaknesses in the report are manifest and the reality is that those who have been critical of the ALP-inspired approach to school funding have been proven correct.Under the heading"Complexify of the funding model",section 9.7 Appendix Volume l,tle state ment i8 made that "new school funding arrangements are complex,inconsistent and lack transpartency".lnstead of having a national funding model,we have a situation where the states and teand Catholic and independent school sectors have their own approaches to allocating fun schools.So much for the argument that the Gonski model represents an improvement on the How govemment's 8upposedly opaque and inconsistently applied socio-economic status( SES) model.The Schooling Resource Standard is also criticized for not being "hased on a detailed analysi the cost of delivering education" and the formula employed for quantifying disadvantage for of faulfy data leading to students " being misidentified as being inside or outside definiiions of educationally  disadvantaged " . Citing international research and an analysis carried out by the AI.P federal member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh,when an academic at the Australian National University,the audit report also concludes there is little,if any,relationship between increased expenditure and raising standards.Mirroring the argument put by the Centre for Independent Studies' Jennifer Buckingham in her School Funding on a Budget,ihe audit report argues "increasing funding does not necessarily equate better student outcomes".As common sense suggests,and contrary to the Australian Education Union's "I Give a GonsL campaign,a more effcctive way to raise standanis is to have a rigorous curriculum,qualified and cfmitted teachers,strong parental engagement and schools,within broad guidelines,that have the fiexi bility to manage themselves.As noted in the audit report,it is also important that the duplication between state and Comm wealth governments related to bureaucratic red tape and compliance costs is reduced,in order to al schools to focus on teaching and learning.To applaud the commission of audit's analysis of school funding should not be laken as unqu fied support. The suggestion that the states,and most likely tbeir education departments,should con how funding to independent schoolq is allocated is a mistake. State schools,on the whole,.compete against non-govemmcnt schools.and allowing state gove mentms or their education bureaucrac,ies to decide how (unding is allocated to independent schools presents a conflict of interest.