The Australia Institute report offers little to improve education standards

The issue of SES is clearly much more complex than portrayed in Buying An Education. Repeatedly pointing out that high-SES students have higher achievement does not help low-SES students. We need to know why, and the first step is useful and accurate information.

Buying An Education claimed that the same ACER study also found that SES affects students’ achievement regardless of the type of school they attend. Contrary to this, LSAY Research Report 36 did not analyse the effect of school type. The most recent ACER study to have investigated the effect of school type on academic achievement was LSAY Research Report 22 (pdf, 795 Kb), published in November 2001. It found that non-government schools, particularly independent schools, do have a positive effect on academic achievement that cannot be explained by the SES of their students. The study also found that achievement growth among low achievers was greater in independent schools.

The above evidence does not suggest, as Dennis claims, that SES is more important than schools themselves. There is widespread agreement among educationists and researchers that good school management and quality teaching are much more influential. The fact that non-government schools seem to produce superior results gives cause to examine the reasons for their success, not to dismiss them as unnecessary.

Aside from the problems described above, the major issue arising from this report, and one it fails to acknowledge, is that parents making decisions about their children’s schooling have very little information. They are forced to make evaluations based on generalised comparisons of entire school sectors. School-by-school performance information should be more readily available, so that parents can make informed judgements, and investments, based on the merits of individual schools.

Third, Buying an Education assumes that a large number of students will need to buy a full-fee place at university, and that if they need to buy one it will be available. Neither assumption is one that parents can easily make for their children.

The vast majority of university places available for domestic students will continue to be government subsidised, with a student contribution charge that can be deferred. Under the new arrangements, universities cannot enrol any domestic fee-paying students until all subsidised (HECS) places in that course have been filled.

The need for full-fee places only arises because of the Commonwealth government’s quota system, under which it forces universities to offer set numbers of places, rather than letting supply and demand fix the appropriate number. The quota system causes enormous distortions in the higher education system, and it may be abolished before today’s children enrol at university. Whether or not quotas are abolished, Labor has promised to abolish fees if it returns to office, which may be well before today’s young school children go to university.

Buying An Education received substantial publicity but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims. Parents who choose non-government schools for their children are not paying for a tertiary entrance score, they are paying for an education. Nevertheless, on average, non-government schools offer an academic advantage.

The Australia Institute, in publishing this report, has done nothing to advance serious and constructive debate on education in Australia. Its underlying argument, that paying for one’s education is inequitable and leads to lower standards, is simply nostalgic, and diverts attention from the far more important issues facing our schools, such as effective teaching and public accountability.