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

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.