Why non-government schools provide the best model - part 2

Non-government school critics argue that the only reason independent schools outperform government schools is because their students come from wealthy backgrounds.  The critics are wrong.

Contrary to the argument put by the President of the Australian Education Union, Angelo Gavielatos, such success is not caused by the fact that non-government schools only enrol already privileged students.  It’s also wrong to suggest that the advantage associated with enrolling students in non-government schools disappears once the socioeconomic background of students is taken into account.

Gary Marks from the Australian Council for Educational Research, on examining the relative performance of government and non-government schools, argues that, “This study shows that school-sector differences can only be partially attributed to socio-economic background” and that, “Neither can school sector differences in tertiary entrance performance be attributed to the non-government school sector being able to recruit high achieving students or to restrict low achievers from competing for university entrance”.

Two researchers from Curtin University, Paul Miller and Derby Voon, provide additional evidence that non-government schools are more successful than government schools when they state, after analysing performance in literacy and numeracy tests, “The results also indicate that test outcomes vary by school sector, with non-government schools having higher school-average scores.  Even after differences in schools ICSEA are taken into account” (ICSEA is used to identify levels of educational disadvantage).

Why do non-government schools achieve such strong results?  Critics argue that the only reason non-government schools do well is because they only enrol medium to high socioeconomic status students while government schools enrol predominantly disadvantaged students.  Such critics are wrong as students’ socioeconomic background is only one factor influencing educational outcomes.

As noted by Gary Marks, “socioeconomic background does not have a strong relationship with student performance.  It accounts for less than 10% of the variation in both tertiary entry score and university participation.”  Marks goes on to argue, “Researchers and policy-makers should be cognizant that simplistic sociological explanations of school sector socioeconomic inequalities in education do not apply”.

In addition, and contrary to the argument that a school community’s socioeconomic profile explains why some schools outperform others, Marks also concludes that such is not the case when he argues, “This study has found no effect for school SES, indicating that the socioeconomic context of the school does not effect student performance when taking into account the academic context”.

Further undermining the argument that socioeconomic background, generally measured by factors such as parental level of education and occupation, determines success or otherwise is a recent Australian study investigating the factors impacting on school completion.  It concludes, “The role of the commonly used indicators of disadvantage associated with school completion, including parental education and occupational status, is shown to be less significant than previously indicated”.

It also should be noted that a number of OECD research papers describe Australia, contrary to the argument put by critics, as having a high degree of social mobility and equity in education. In analysing the relationship between educational outcomes of parents and of their children, used as a measure of intergenerational mobility, one paper concludes that out of 11 OECD countries Australia is the most successful in promoting mobility. 

Instead of Australian society being riven with inequality and disadvantage, a second OECD study analysing social mobility comes to a similar conclusion when it states, “Australia is one of the most socially mobile countries in the OECD”.

A recent OECD paper, Education at a Glance 2012, states, “Young people (25-34 year-old non-students) from families with low levels of education enjoy the greatest educational opportunities in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, where at least 25% of this cohort have attained a tertiary degree, and less than 30% have not completed at least an upper secondary education”.

Dispelling the belief that demography is destiny and that class determines how well students perform at school is critical as the cultural-left, exemplified by the Gonski report, uses the argument about disadvantage to characterise Australia’s education system as inequitable and socially unjust. 

The equity argument is then used by critics to argue that so-called privileged non-government schools should lose funding as government schools are the only schools serving disadvantaged students.

While never acknowledged by Australia’s cultural-left education establishment and self-serving professional groups like the AEU, there are a number of more important reasons why non-government schools outperform government schools.

Independent and Catholic schools, in order to attract students and maintain enrolments, have to acknowledge and respond to market forces represented by parental demands and expectations.  Unlike government schools that serve a captive market where there is limited choice, non-government schools exist in a competitive environment.

Parents have the power to choose between a range of schools and, especially as a result of paying school fees, expect that schools will reflect their values and aspirations.  High in this regard, as shown by parental surveys, are factors like: a disciplined classroom environment, an academic curriculum where students are motivated to succeed, being faith-based and rich in co-curricular activities and employing highly qualified and effective teachers.

In explaining why non-government schools outperform government schools, even after adjusting for students’ socioeconomic background, it is significant that Gary Marks also refers to many of the above listed characteristics.  On analysing school influence on tertiary entry scores (known as ENTER scores) Marks writes, “Students’ ENTER scores are boosted in schools with strong academic environments and weakened by schools in weak academic environments”.

Central to success, as common sense suggests, are also characteristics associated with what Marks refers to as “Academic Press”, described as a situation where schools are able to engender in students a willingness to learn, to work hard and to be well behaved.  Marks also argues that teacher effectiveness and students’ prior academic ability are factors that have a strong influence on Year 12 results.

In the context of the Gonski report’s call for an additional $5 billion in annual spending on education, more like $6.5 billion on current estimates, it’s significant that Marks also argues additional funding is not the answer and that a more effective and realistic way to help state school students achieve better results is to strengthen government schools by allowing them to adopt and implement the characteristics of stronger performing schools.

In addition to non-government schools existing in a market environment, research suggests that a key factor explaining their success, compared to government schools, is that they have the autonomy and flexibility to manage themselves and to best reflect the needs and aspirations of their communities.  Schools that have control over staffing, budgets and curriculum focus perform better than schools controlled by bureaucrats and politicians who are often driven by short-term expediency and educational fashions and fads.

The way in which the various school sectors dealt with the ALP’s Building the Education Revolution (BER) multi-billion dollar infrastructure program provides a clear illustration of the benefits of school autonomy.  As noted in the BER Taskforce report, independent and Catholic schools were more cost effective and had fewer delays or complaints compared to government schools that lacked the freedom to make decisions at the local level.

As noted in an OECD study analysing the impact of school autonomy and accountability on PISA test results, “In countries where schools have greater autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend to perform better”.  The OECD study also acknowledges the benefits of autonomy in advanced economies like Australia when it argues, “Our central finding is that autonomy reforms improve student achievement in developed countries, but undermine it in developing countries”.

Contrary to the argument put by non-government school critics that school autonomy leads to greater inequity in education, as students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are further disadvantaged, an argument is also put that, “Finally, there is no indication that autonomy differentially affects students with well-off and disadvantaged backgrounds.  This suggests that autonomy reforms do not effect inequality between students with different social backgrounds in either developed or developing countries”.

It should also be noted that a second OECD paper analysing the impact of a more market driven approach to education on equity argues that if governments are truly committed to overcoming disadvantage in education they should guarantee that non-government schools are properly funded.

The authors of the paper state, “… the results reveal that a higher difference between private and public schools in the share of government funding is detrimental for average student achievement and for equality of educational opportunity.  Thus, average student performance is lower in countries where private schools receive only little funding from the government… It seems that government funding of private schools benefits in particular students with low SES”.

Much of the Gonski report and Prime Minister Gillard’s Press Club speech embrace a cultural-left, deficit view of education.  Accordingly, the argument is that the main factor determining whether students achieve or not is their socioeconomic background; working class, migrant and other at-risk students are destined to underachieve and students from wealthy homes will always succeed.

In addition to being a self-fulfilling prophecy, and providing convenient ammunition for the cultural-left to mistakenly argue that capitalist society is riven with inequality and injustice, such a belief is simplistic and erroneous.  As outlined in this essay, there is a good deal of evidence suggesting that socioeconomic status is not the dominant factor influencing whether students succeed or not.

Equally, if not more important are factors like autonomy, diversity, competition and choice in education, best exemplified by Australia’s non-government school system.  If the ALP government is serious about lifting standards, strengthening schools and overcoming disadvantage then it should guarantee that such schools are properly funded and that its moral crusade in education does not further undermine the very characteristics that allow such schools to perform as well as they do.