by Roy Martin

Reproduced with the kind permission of Educare News, the independent journal of Australian education, www.educare.com.au/

Roy Martin argues that, while Australian students as a whole are performing well, compared with their international peers, in terms of a measure of 'fair go' for all students, Australia is not doing so well. The concentration of poverty is now extreme, and is, with very few exceptions, distilled into government schools. The major challenge confronting Australian schooling, he argues, is to address this disadvantage and inequity. Distributing public money disproportionately to those with the greatest need and making private schools more subservient to a public policy of equitable outcomes for all social groups must become the schooling priority.

The Australian PISA Report (Lokan, Greenwood and Cresswell, 2001) released towards the end of last year showed that the performance of Australian students is comparable with the best in the OECD. Only one country, Finland, performed significantly better than Australia in reading literacy. Only one country, Japan, performed significantly better than Australia in mathematical literacy. Only two countries, Korea and Japan, performed significantly better than Australia in scientific literacy. In reading literacy (the major focus of PISA 2000), Australia had one of the highest proportions of students of any country at the highest proficiency level (Level 5) and one of the lowest proportions of students at the lowest level (below Level 1). If one places faith in such international comparisons then one has to argue that there is certainly no crisis in Australian education.

Priority Problem

However, PISA also underlined one of the major areas in need of attention. On an international level, PISA reaffirmed the importance of socioeconomic background to student achievement, but it also showed that Australia is amongst those countries where socioeconomic background is a more important determinant. It was found that, in Australia:

• the relationship between socioeconomic background and achievement in reading was above the norm
• socioeconomic background, based on parents' occupations, was one of the most important student variables
• student and school levels
• the social composition of a schools' student population was a stronger predictor of student performance than individual background
• school related variables that were associated with student achievement were also dominated by socioeconomic background.

These findings come as no surprise to those who look at the demography of disadvantage. Over the past decades there have been many studies showing the relationship between socioeconomic status and student outcomes. (For a summary see Mukherjee, Brown, and Welsmore, 1999.) More recently, Richard Teese has performed a detailed charting of the relationship between postcode and academic success in Victoria. (Teese, 2000) Gregory (Gregory and Hunter, 1995, Gregory, 1999) has shown the connection between these academic outcomes and life chances and the connection between neighbourhoods and the inter-generational transfer of inequity.

From this and related literature it is reasonable to conclude that in Australia:

• inequity is increasing
• the relationship between low incomes, unemployment and geographic location is considerable and has increased
• the relationship between geographic location and education outcomes is considerable
• family income is becoming more important in terms of a child's life chances
• inequity and poverty are both inter-generational and related to geographic location.

A number of reports and case studies conducted by community organisations in the past decade highlight the way in which those from families which are the most financially disadvantaged suffer inferior education opportunities. Participants in a large-scale qualitative research project on the impact of poverty on low income households in Tasmania nominated the cost of public schooling as one of the major sources of financial stress for their families. One of the key findings of this report was: 'The notion of free education is being undermined by the apparent funding crisis in the state education system with a range of levies and charges being introduced for excursions, activities, competitions and courses.'

A second research project (Flanagan, 2002) found that widespread socio-economic disadvantage is having a substantial impact on the experience of children from low-income families. This is experienced through the impact of poverty on the children's lives and experiences and also because of the widespread enforcement of a 'user pays' approach throughout the education system. Low income families reported that the imposition of charges by schools has become a significant barrier for their children's participation in education programs and appears to be closely associated with patterns of absenteeism. The report argues that with forty per cent of the children in the Tasmanian public education system coming from families living on incomes on or below Health Care Card eligibility, and therefore eligible for 'fee relief,' it is no longer appropriate to treat socio-economically disadvantaged children as an 'equity group' and that every budgetary and policy decision made must be made with the context of widespread poverty clearly in focus.

Studies have similarly found that the imposition of school charges (generally nominally voluntary) has become a significant barrier to the participation of children experiencing poverty elsewhere in Australia. (See, for instance, Orr, nd and Orr and Taylor, 1996 and Webster, 2002.) Such research however highlights only the tip of the iceberg. Simply addressing the effects of so-called 'voluntary fees,' important as it is, will be only a small beginning if we are to tackle the massive inequities and disadvantages within our systems.

The 2000 survey for the Priority Schools Funding Program in NSW (the continuation in that state of the now lapsed Commonwealth Disadvantaged Schools Program (DSP)) showed that in about one quarter (530) of government schools, thirty per cent of families had no-one working. The concentration of poverty is now extreme, and is, with very few exceptions, distilled into government schools.

The major challenge confronting Australian schooling is to address this disadvantage and inequity. The National Goals for Schooling expresses the right sentiments when it says: 'Australia's future depends upon each citizen having the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills, and values for a productive and rewarding life in an educated, just and open society. High quality schooling is central to this vision.' And everyone should support its desire to ensure that: 'Schooling should be socially just, so that students' outcomes from schooling are free from the negative effects of…differences arising from students socioeconomic background or geographic location.' But unless this becomes a national priority it is little more than a platitude. There needs to be both large increases in funding and large scale redistribution of existing funding if we are to live up to the ideal of 'a fair go for all.'

Role of private schooling

It is within this context that the funding of private schools must be considered. It is perfectly legitimate to ask how they relate to the problem. First, let me say that I do agree with Bill Daniels in his article in this column last issue that 'the independent sector is highly diverse.' It is possible to find a private school to illustrate almost any point one wishes to make, either for or against them. They are not a homogenous group. They espouse a range of values and objectives. It is, therefore, all the more disappointing that in the debate around school funding following the introduction of the new funding model in 2001, they were all prepared to follow the leader and either support, or at least keep quiet about, a funding system which runs counter to the ideals so many of them claim to espouse, and counter to their own interests, let alone those of public schools. If they wish to speak with one voice, and that is a voice which seeks to justify massive increases to the most wealthy and least needy schools, then it is they who are causing the misperception, not those who oppose the funding.

In Victoria, the overtly political campaign run by the Category One schools and the Victorian branch of the Association of Independent Schools against ALP proposals to redirect the increases from the schools which least needed them to some of the most disadvantaged students was met with almost total acquiescence by those private schools which do not have the same level of resources and were not going to get the increases. In the final analysis, they seem to believe that their best interests lie with supporting self interest and sectional politics. They may subscribe to the National Goals of Schooling in a general way, they may even pursue some social justice objectives within their own school or systems, but they do not advocate and argue for funding policies which will begin to address the social equity clauses beyond their own school gates.

However many lower income students there are in the private system – and one should be cautious of simplistic interpretations of ABS data – the private schools and systems are not there to achieve greater social justice and equity. There may be a few 'struggling parents' making sacrifices to send their children to them, but they are motivated by a perception that their child will not be 'up there' unless they make them. They are aspirational parents seeking to buy individual advantage for their child. This itself is of course quite natural and possibly morally defensible. All parents want the best for their child. What is socially undesirable and indefensible is the way the private school lobby wields its awesome collective power to secure an unfair share of the education pie, and the weakness of political parties who cater to it rather than offering a more inclusive and collective avenue for parental aspiration.

The debate around private schools has undergone a fundamental change coinciding with the change of century. It is not the same debate it was in the latter part of the Twentieth Century and it is time that the new issues were more clearly articulated and defined and that a re-evaluation of the role of private schools takes place. Prior to 2000, funding was primarily 'needs based.' Although wealthy schools received some government hand outs, this was accepted as a political settlement whilst focussing on those with lesser resources. The cry was initially to improve the resource standards of all schools and to bring 'poor' private schools up to the desirable resource standards in government schools. By and large, this was achieved by 2000. In 1992 the then Commonwealth Minister of Education, John Dawkins, released his proposals for Funding non-government schools to the year 2000. (Dawkins, 1992) It put in place not only indexation of funding, but a 'Betterment factor' designed to ensure that by 2000 all private schools were operating at the Average Government School Recurrent Cost (AGSRC) even though, of course, not all government schools are at the average. This was delivered in full, and whilst there has been no report to assess the effectiveness or otherwise of the program, it is reasonable to assume that all schools and systems have been given the means to rise to this standard.

The new funding model introduced in 2001 was therefore significant for a number of reasons:

• it took place in a context where private schools were, by and large, already resourced at or above their public school counterparts
• nevertheless, it vastly increased the amount of Commonwealth subsidy to private schools over and above the anticipated indexation, whilst maintaining that to public schools only on an indexed basis
• it broke any nexus with school needs
• it ignored private school private income.

The Commonwealth and the states and territories must work together to ensure equitable outcomes for all groups, but above all put a national priority on funding for equity. It cannot do this within its current funding priorities. The Forward Estimates in the most recent budget papers show that by 2005-06, the Commonwealth expects to spend over $4.7 billion dollars subsidising the private school system, (compared to $1.7 billion on public schools), and only $_ billion on all targeted programs to both sectors, including specific Indigenous programs. Given that even this figure overstates the commitment to equity objectives, as not all targeted programs focus on disadvantage, it can clearly be seen that the national effort targeting those that should be the highest priority is little more than tokenistic.

It's not hard to imagine the private school lobby response: public schools are the responsibility of state or territory governments. Of course, they quietly ignore the absurdity whereby the legislation now ties their subsidy to the AGSRC so that if the states and territories focus extra funding on disadvantaged or Indigenous students, then the subsidy to all private schools is increased. Thus any attempt by state or territory governments to deal with the appalling inequity in outcomes for Indigenous students, for instance, would increase the Commonwealth windfall to the likes of The Kings School, Geelong Grammar, Scotch College, and so on. Such is the extent to which middle class greed has been able to secure itself against any social justice programs!

As I travel home each night, I am confronted with a huge billboard showing two boys, presumably about to enter Year Seven, wearing gowns and mortarboards, and bearing the words: 'LAST YEAR 98% OF SOMEPLACE GRAMMAR SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO TOOK THE VCE WON A TERTIARY PLACE – IT PAYS.' To what extent can this school – and those like it that seek to reinforce the notion that school success can be judged by the number of students going on to higher education – claim to be part of the 'complementarity among schooling sectors' which Bill Daniels claims them to be, last issue?

Why has the Commonwealth government given funding priority to such schools – schools which clearly are very selective about who they choose to teach in the first place, and are no doubt more than happy to 'persuade' those who will not enhance its advertising potential to return to 'less ambitious' schools? Why are such schools allowed to so confine their educational offerings when national reports tell us Australia must give more emphasis to the vocational, and when other government policy is seeking to create greater retention through making the last two years of schooling more relevant to those not going on to university?

To return to the PISA results, the link with the inequity shown in Australia is clear. An analysis of the success of Finland and Korea in the PISA results draws the conclusion that: 'along with most of the other high performers, Finland and Korea have a strong commitment to comprehensive education….They also have very few private schools. (Slater, 22) Australia, however, has a priority to fund private schools which exist only to perpetuate the existing economic order – schools which have none of the transformational elements which should be a fundamental priority in school expenditure. Even the few scholarships they offer – and claim so much social justice credit for – are more about ensuring they capture the 'able poor,' hollowing out public schools in the process.

In far too many cases the rhetoric of 'parent choice' masks the fact that it is the schools that are choosing who they teach. Choosing only the easiest to teach and subscribing to limited educational vision, they claim they have created 'good schools,' but ignore the needs of substantial sections of the Australian population, turn their back on inter-generational transfer of life chances, and do not serve Australia's economic interest. The money they spend on advertising alone could make a substantial difference to many public schools with higher ideals, struggling to do their best for less advantaged students.

If private schools are to continue to be funded from the public purse, it is time that they were made genuinely accountable. By this, I mean not just reporting that they have spent the government money in the way that is intended, whilst cost shifting within their private financing to release other money for what they want, but accountable for ensuring that their activities are in the public interest. In an age when the public sector has been made more accountable than ever before, and when government funding is almost invariably tied to measurable outcomes, money is handed over to the private schools with only the haziest of purposes expressed. This is most clearly illustrated in David Kemp's statements that the increases in funding would reduce fees. In fact, we now know that many schools increased their fees by ten per cent or more. However, there was no relationship established between the money that was given and the outcomes that David Kemp said would be achieved.

Which other organisations receive government money without the government also requiring some degree of say into how they spend their own money? Should not the fact they receive large amounts of public money – in some cases as much as ninety per cent or more of their operating expenses also mean they should be accountable to the public for their policy? Should not their entry and exclusion policies be consistent with those in public education? They must be made publicly accountable for all aspects of their operation.

Without a strong public system, the private system could not operate as it does. It has all the advantages of being able to plan its own growth whilst the public system copes with any volatility in student numbers. Private schools can choose their geographic location, and time when they begin operations. They can control admissions to ensure they operate at optimum capacity. They can expel or persuade students to leave, knowing the public system takes anyone, anytime. If a school were to collapse financially, all of the students would have a right to a place in a public school the next day. The sectors cannot be complementary whilst the relationship is based on competition: one sector has the overriding social responsibility, and the other has the resourcing advantages.

It is time to re-examine the relationship between the two sectors, but this must be done from the perspective of the overriding public policy imperative of achieving more equitable outcomes from the schooling system. Proposals which are based on making some public schools able to compete with private schools, such as those made recently by Caldwell and Roskam (2002), are approaching things from the wrong angle. Creating havens of selectivity and exclusiveness within the public system so that the already advantaged can pursue the inter-generational transfer of this advantage without paying for it is not the answer. The deleterious effects of setting up public schools as autonomous competing entities had become all too apparent in Victoria by the time the Kennett era was ended by an astute public. Nor should means testing parents of students in public schools be dressed up as a social justice initiative. Eventually those who pay the piper call the tune. In the UK, latest research is showing that a determined attack on poverty linked to the provision of extra resources may make a difference. (Slater and Mansell, 2002) It is time to rebut those in Australia arguing that resources do not matter when dealing with the disadvantaged, whilst condoning increases to the privileged. Distributing public money disproportionately to those with the greatest need and making private schools more subservient to a public policy of equitable outcomes for all social groups must become the schooling priority.

Roy Martin is the Australian Education Union's Federal Research Officer

References:
Anglicare Tasmania. (2000) Hearing the Voices: Life on a low income in Tasmania.
Caldwell, Brian and Roskam, John. (2002) Australia's Education Choices. The Menzies Research Centre. Canberra.
Daniels, Bill. (2002) 'Step One: Let's Redefine the Education Debate.' Educare, July 2002.
Dawkins, John. (1992) Funding Non Government Schools to the Year 2000. DEET: Canberra.
Gregory, R. G. (1999) Competing with Dad: Changes in the intergenerational distribution of male labour market income. Discussion Paper No. 400, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University: Canberra.
Gregory, R. G. and Hunter, B. (1995) The Macro Economy and the Growth of Ghettos and Urban Poverty in Australia. Discussion Paper No. 325, Centre for Economic Policy Research. Australian National University: Canberra.
Jo Flanagan. (2000) The Cost of Education: Two classes in one room. Anglicare Tasmania.
Lokan, Jan, Greenwood, Lisa, and Cresswell. John (2001) How Literate are Australia's Students? ACER: Melbourne.
Mukherjee, Dev, Brown, Joan, and Welsmore, Jim. (1999), Equity and Education: The Challenge. AEU: Melbourne.
Nelson, Brendan. (2002) 'ACT budget fails schools.' Media release, June 2, 2002.
Orr, Elizabeth. (nd) Free Education: Who can afford it? The Smith Family: Sydney.
Orr, Elizabeth and Taylor, F. (1996) Australia's Poverty Challenge: Breaking the poverty cycle by addressing the poverty profile.The Smith Family: Sydney.
Slater, Jon and Mansell, Warwick. (2002) 'Winners and losers in poverty "lottery."' Times Educational Supplement, June 21, 2002. 6-7.
Slater, Jon. (2001) 'Cultures in a class of their own.' Times Educational Supplement, December 14, 2001. 22-23.
Teese, Richard. (2000) Academic Success and Social Power: Examinations and inequality. Melbourne UP.
Webster, Marilyn. (2002) User Pays – Who Pays? Good Shepherd Welfare Service: Melbourne.