Reforming Indigenous school education: The charter school alternative

Participation and achieving excellence in education has long been considered a central determinant in policy efforts to improve the economic and social status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Indeed, it could be reasonably argued that the emphasis on education to ameliorate Indigenous disadvantage has taken on even greater importance, given the relatively youthful Indigenous demographic profile against the background of an ageing Australian population, and the growing understanding of human capital investment as a long-term contributor to national economic prosperity.

The modern market economy relies on continuous creativity, flexibility and innovation in order to function efficiently, and through it delivering income growth and employment, and so it is essential that all young people, including those from Indigenous backgrounds, are provided with adequate educational opportunities to participate in the economy and society of the future.

Indigenous education statistics

Notwithstanding some signs of improvement in recent years, the empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Indigenous school students, on average, are attaining lower educational outcomes compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts, therefore exacerbating the degree of overall Indigenous socio-economic disadvantage.

According to the Australian Government’s 2002 National Report on Indigenous Education and Training (NRIET), there remain substantial gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in formative reading, writing and numeracy skills.

For example, in 2001, 72 per cent of Indigenous students achieved the Year 3 reading benchmarks, compared to 90.3 per cent for non-Indigenous students; 67.8 per cent of Indigenous students achieved the Year 3 writing benchmarks (compared to 89.5 per cent of non-Indigenous students); and 80.2 per cent of Indigenous students achieved the Year 3 numeracy benchmarks (compared to 93.9 per cent of non-Indigenous students). Similar differentials exist in terms of the Year 5 national benchmarks. Further, the national average apparent retention rate for Indigenous students commencing in Year 7/8 and continuing to Year 12 was 38 per cent in 2002, compared to 76.3 per cent for non-Indigenous students.

In addition to this, recent information obtained at a local level has added further weight to the insurmountable evidence relating to the extent of Indigenous underperformance within the education system:

• A leaked Queensland Government briefing paper for the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) revealed that, in 2003, only 6 per cent of Indigenous students in the Cape York region completed Year 12. From the three Cape York government secondary schools, only two students matriculated in 2003. Further, approximately 1,500 Indigenous students were eligible to attend school in Cape York, yet only 150 were enrolled.
• A report released by the Fred Hollows Foundation indicated that not one child in the Northern Territory community of Wugularr, situated 120 kilometres south of Katherine, achieved the Years 3 and 5 national literacy benchmarks in 2002.

These outcomes are a cause for concern for educators, policymakers and the general community.

Pearson boarding school scholarships proposal

In recent statements reported in the media, Aboriginal community leader Noel Pearson advocated that in an effort to help lift Indigenous school educational outcomes, scholarships be provided to Indigenous students currently residing in remote communities to attend “high-quality, high-expectation boarding schools” in the non-government sector. Many of these schools are situated in the capital cities, with significant boarding schools also present in major regional centres. Funding for this proposal could be derived from new and redirected State and Commonwealth Government funding or from private sources, including from business enterprises.

Mr Pearson’s proposal appears to stem from fundamental concerns relating to the lack of quality educational services provided in government schools, which dominate educational services in remote communities in particular, and the impact of this lack of access to high-quality education on endemic welfare dependency in local Aboriginal communities.

If Pearson’s proposition that “the starting point for any honest discussion about Indigenous education must be the admission that it is, with few exceptions, a massive disaster and it has been so for a long time” is to be accepted, then clearly the boarding school scholarships model should be augmented by complementary strategies to support those students that remain within the government school system. In particular, the government school sector requires fundamental structural change to enable Indigenous students, particularly in rural and remote localities, to reap the benefits of choice and quality educational services that are currently provided by urban non-government schools.

Consistent with this, a number of prominent Indigenous figures, such as Queensland’s Cherbourg State School principal Chris Sarra and ATSIC Darwin region chair Kimberley Hunter, have suggested the Pearson model can be usefully complemented by policy reform which emphasises better linkages between schools and their communities, particularly the degree of Indigenous community involvement in individual schools and the education system as a whole.

The charter school alternative for Indigenous communities

So, what is to be done to augment the Pearson model for those Indigenous students in rural and remote areas who are not the beneficiaries of boarding school scholarships? A potential solution lies in the establishment of a class of non-systemic government schools called “charter schools”, to liberalise and diversify the supply of schools and to make the government school sector more responsive to parents and students.

Charter schools are publicly financed, yet are self-governed under the terms of a performance contract. They enable parents, teachers, companies or any other qualified group to establish schools on their own accord, and to be freed from the regulatory and administrative constraints, including in the areas of curriculum, teaching methods, the selection and dismissal of staff, financial resource management and asset management, that constrain the operations of conventional government schools.

In exchange, the schools are held accountable to government for student performance and outcomes. These schools provide for a much greater sense of ownership and decision-making at local community level, allow committed school leaders and teaching staff to tailor services for the benefit of the enrolled student population, as well as facilitate greater competition between alternative school providers.

Internationally the evidence suggests that the charter school model is highly effective in delivering improvements in school educational services and promoting choice among alternative schooling providers. A recent study by American economist Caroline M Hoxby compares student achievement in US charter schools against the achievement of students in the nearby regular public schools. Charter school students were found to be more proficient in reading and mathematics compared to their public school counterparts, and this advantage is greater in those US States where charter schools are well established.

The literature also illustrates that many charter schools in the US tend to enrol relatively greater proportions of students from minority groups and low-income families, compared to other schools. Indeed, a number of American studies have shown that charter schools have been successful in delivering significant improvements in academic test scores for African-American students and other groups. This delivers some potential lessons for government school reform options to improve Australian Indigenous student outcomes.

The States as the bulwark against Indigenous charter school reform

Increasing the effective level of school choice in rural and remote communities, through the establishment of charter schools, would deliver significant benefits to Indigenous people through greater involvement of students and families in determining of their own high-quality education services.

The main obstacle to the formation of Australian charter schools is the continuing intransigence of State and Territory Labor Governments in pursuing much needed microeconomic reform in the school education sector. In essence, the government school system effectively operates as a monopoly, particularly in rural and remote locations, and hence works to maximise the benefits to providers, and allied self-interest groups such as teacher unions, rather than consumers. This has led to a lack of flexibility and experimentation afforded to individual schools, largely tokenistic parental participation in school operations, and an antagonistic approach towards the growing willingness of non-government and for-profit entities to participate in the delivery of school education services.

In addition, the States have shown an ideological disposition against introducing student-centred schools funding, in the form of a voucher scheme, which would enable charter schools to compete for parental custom and, through it, student enrolments on an equal footing with government and non-government schools. In the absence of a fundamental change in policy approach in these areas, the possibility of charter schools regrettably remains a distant prospect, with the only losers from this game of “reform brinkmanship” being young Indigenous people and communities seeking greater participation in the market-based economy and modern society through quality school education.