Teaching trumps background

In The Australian (28 January, 2015) Justine Ferrari argues, “In Australia, family background is still the biggest determinant of student achievement, and that is primarily related to the money available to educate the child, at home and at school”.

Non-government school critics like the Australian Education Union, when arguing that governments must increase funding to government schools (and cut back funding to Catholic and independent schools) also argue that home background is the main factor determining educational success or failure.

Both are incorrect.  The reality is that while home background, or socioeconomic status, impacts on student achievement research proves that there are a number of other factors equally, if not more, significant.

Firstly, how influential is family background?  A 2009 study analysing PISA results by the Australian Council for Educational Research concludes, “Almost 13 per cent of the explained variance in student performance in Australia was found to be attributable to students’ socioeconomic background”.

Gary Marks, a researcher at the University of Melbourne writing in The Australian, November 6, 2014, puts the figure at between 10 to 15 per cent when he argues, in relation to home background, “Socioeconomic status has only a weak to moderate relationship with educational outcomes”.

An earlier study also carried out by the ACER in 2002 analysing what most determines Year 12 success puts socioeconomic background 3^rd in influence after students’ “proficiency in literacy and numeracy in the early years” and the impact of a school’s culture and classroom environment.

A more recent study published in 2013 investigating the impact of schools on transition to university reaches a similar conclusion when it states, “the average socioeconomic status of students at a school does not emerge as a significant factor, after controlling for individual characteristics including academic achievement from the PISA test”.

In relation to the likelihood of students completing Year 12 research associated with the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) also downplays the impact of home background when it argues factors like family background and income are “shown to be less significant than previously indicated”.

Secondly, what most influences educational success or failure?  Research associated with the LSAY and also by Gary Marks and the ACER identifies a number of factors that are more influential than home background.

This includes what in the US is known as a school’s academic press.  This refers to the culture and climate of a school involving factors like classroom discipline, having high expectations, consequences for success and failure and the belief, with hard work and application, that students can succeed.

Such schools, generally speaking, outperform other schools with a similar socioeconomic profile.  As noted by a second LSAY study investigating the impact of schools on students’ performance, “As academic quality increases, individual socioeconomic background becomes less relevant in relation to the probability of completing Year 12”.

Factors like teacher commitment and expertise, effective school leadership, school autonomy and having a rigorous, evidence-based curriculum also have a significant influence on outcomes.

It is also increasingly evident that individual student ability, motivation and willingness to achieve success can ensure positive outcomes regardless of home background and whether parents are professionally educated or wealthy.

A 2003 ACER report highlights the importance of “motivation, perseverance, study habits, interest, enthusiasm and other factors over which students can exercise control” in explaining success at school.

The fact, compared to the majority of other OECD countries, that Australian students with a migrant, non-English speaking background have a better chance of outperforming students born here proves that ability and effort can overcome perceived disadvantage caused by home background.

Associated with the argument that home background determines educational success or failure is the mistaken belief that Australia’s education system is inequitable.  Critics argue that the existence of non-government schools reinforces disadvantage and social inequality.

Ignored, based on a number of OECD studies, is that Australia has a high degree of social mobility and one of the principal reasons is because of our education system.  As noted by Benjamin Herscovitich from the Centre for Independent Studies, “Australia is a fair go success story”.

Herscovotch goes on to conclude, “Australia has one of the highest rates or earnings and educational mobility in the industrialised world” and “the children whose parents did not finish secondary schooling are more likely to receive tertiary education in Australia than in other industrialised countries”.

And, as proven by the existence of academically successful, low-fee paying Catholic and non-denominational schools in many disadvantaged parts of the community, one reason why social mobility is high is because such schools are very effective in helping students achieve stronger educational outcomes than otherwise might be expected.

There is no doubt that more needs be done to strengthen learning outcomes and to raise standards but, ignoring the real reasons for under-performance denies any chance of improvement.