Public and private education do provide a ladder of opportunity

Who would have believed it - according to a secret paper on school funding written by Richard Teese from the University of Melbourne and leaked to The Australian last week, some schools are better resourced than others, some schools also achieve better results, and not all students are lucky enough to come from privileged homes.

As noted by Chris Bonnor (On Line Opinion 3 February) the Teese report received widespread coverage with state school activists like the AEU President, Angelo Gavielatos, using the report to argue that governments must not fund non-government schools.

While it is important to provide equality of opportunity and to redress disadvantage, what cultural-left academics and teacher unionists don’t understand is that we don’t live in a socialist utopia. Unfortunately, not all are equal in terms of ability and intellect and not everyone can be guaranteed success: especially in education.

Some students are more capable and more motivated than others, some parents work harder to advantage their children, some schools employ more effective staff, create a more disciplined environment, and have a more academic curriculum.

Welcome to the real world. While the mantra of the cultural-left is one of positive discrimination and equality of outcomes, as anyone who has read Orwell’s Animal Farm knows, ideologically imposed egalitarianism and the promise of equity for all do not work.

At least, though, Professor Teese is consistent in his opposition to merit and ability being acknowledged and his portrayal of an education system, supposedly, that reinforces inequity and disadvantage. In a 1993 book, Undemocratic Schooling, the argument is that education is a tool used by the elites to marginalise and dispossess the working class.

Drawing on a Marxist critique of education, espoused by sociologists like Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of education movement, Teese rails against the existence of non-government and selective schools, the fact that non-government receive government funding and that not all parents can afford school choice.

As the saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. While the argument that Australia’s education system is riven with inequality and that Catholic and independent school reinforce disadvantage is attractive to the cultural-left, there is another side to the debate.

As proven by research carried out by the OECD, Australia is one of the most egalitarian countries in the world where there is a high degree of social mobility. We are not a class-based society where children are condemned to follow their parents’ footsteps.  One only needs to look at the way the children of post-war European migrants, and more recent arrivals from Asia, succeed academically and materially to understand that class is not destiny.

The one-time leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mark Latham, got it right when he argued that education provides a ladder of opportunity that helps overcome disadvantage and promote a fairer society.

Australian research also proves that socioeconomic background is not the most influential determinant of educational success or failure; equally as important are factors like student ability and motivation, teacher effectiveness, school climate and the quality of the curriculum.

It’s also the case that while there are wealthy and privileged non-government schools, the current socioeconomic status (SES) model of funding is based on need. Schools like Melbourne Grammar and Sydney’s Kings only receive from government 13.7 per cent of what state school students receive. On average, government school students receive $13,544 from state and federal governments while non-government school students receive $6,850 per student.

Contrary to what non-government school critics, like the Australian Education Union’s President Angelo Gavrielatos argues, it is simply not true that non-government schools receive more government funding than state schools.

Another fact that is also ignored by critics, who characterise independent schools as elitist and privileged, is that most of the growth in enrolments over the last 20 years or so has been in low fee-paying non-denominational schools serving less affluent communities.

Based on a commitment to overcoming disadvantage and under current funding arrangements it is also true that state and federal governments spend millions every year on programs designed to strengthen educational outcomes, especially in literacy and numeracy, for under-performing and at-risk groups of students.

Beginning with the Disadvantaged School Program in the 1970s and continuing to this day, disadvantaged schools receive additional targeted funding not available to more affluent schools.

It’s no secret that the AEU and academics like Richard Teese are hostile to non-government schools and, in the context of the current funding review chaired by David Gonski, that they would argue that the easiest way to strengthen educational outcomes for disadvantaged students is to take money from non-government schools and give it to state schools.

Ignored is that the existing funding model is based on need and disadvantaged students already receive more in government funds. Also ignored is that there is little, if any, correlation between levels of funding and educational outcomes.

Instead of throwing more money at disadvantaged schools a better option is to make such schools more effective and to create the conditions where teachers can deliver a quality education based on the premise that effort and ability can be rewarded.

Instead of penalising those parents who, through hard work and success in life, are able to afford to send their children to non-government schools, it’s also a good idea to realise that meritocracy and rewarding effort are better alternatives to the cultural-left’s utopian dream of enforcing equality and sameness for all.