Advertisement

School Reform and Inequality in Urban Australia

A Case of Residualising the Poor
  • Stephen Lamb

Abstract

Over the past three decades, government schools in Australia have been exposed to the effects of several major public policy reforms aimed at improving school performance. One is the well-documented push to marketisation or the re-organisation of school management around ‘market’ principles (see, for example, Whitty, Power & Halpin, 1998). Greater autonomy for schools through devolution of decision making, the introduction of school councils, a focus on school-based management, and the easing of restrictions on school catchment boundaries to enhance parental choice were all initiated with the promise of promoting more effective schools through increased competition. Another is the push to privatisation through increasing the levels of public funding to private providers, or what could be described as the public funding of private effort in the delivery of schooling.

Keywords

Private School School Reform School Size School Council Commonwealth School Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Auditor General of Victoria. (1995). The Changing Profile of State Education: School Reorganizations. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2001). Australian Standard Geographical Classification(ASGC Catalogue No. 1216.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2003). Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2001 [Cat. No. 2033.0.30.001]. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2005, and previous years). Schools Australia 2004 (Catalogue 4221.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, G. (2001, 28-30 March). Trends in educational expenditure [On line]. Paper presented at the Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association 2001 Conference. Available at: http://www.avetra.org.au/abstracts_and_papers_2001/Burke_full.pdf
  6. Butts, R. F. (1955). Assumptions Underlying Australian Education. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  7. Caldwell, B. (1998). Self-managing Schools and Improved Learning Outcomes. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  8. Caldwell, B. & Roskam, J. (2002). Australia’s Education Choices: A Report to the Menzies Research Centre. Sydney: The Menzies Research Centre.Google Scholar
  9. Claydon, L.F. (Ed.). (1975). The Urban School. Carlton, Victoria: Pitman Pacific Books.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, C., Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2000). Factors Influencing the Educational Performance of Males and Females in School and their Initial Destinations after Leaving School[On line]. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education Science and Training. Available: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/F0270F6E-B2C3-4CF4-833D-4C8029EA7D6E/4093/Gender_Report.pdf
  11. Commonwealth Schools Commission (1985). Choice and Diversity in Government Schooling: Collected papers of a special project of the Commonwealth Schools Commission and state and territory education authorities, on choice and diversity in government schooling, 1979-1984. Canberra: Commonwealth Schools Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Community Education Committee, Victoria (1979). Community education policies and guidelines for school-based programs. Prepared by the Community Education Committee for the Victorian Education Department. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.Google Scholar
  13. Connell, R.W., Ashenden, D., Kessler, S., & Dowsett, G. (1982). Making the Difference: Schools, Families and Social Division. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  14. Cotton, K. (1996). School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance (Close Up # 20). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  15. Deller, S.C., & Rudnicki, E. (1993). Production efficiency in elementary education: The case of Maine schools. Economics of Education Review, 12, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Department of Education, Victoria. (1994). Students in new schools enjoy expanded opportunities(News Release from the Office of the Minister for Education, August 2 1994) [On line]. Available: http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/pressrel.nsf/d098b6879550b54c4a25620d002cdbc8/fa2848f387a1c0104a2561f100397f19!OpenDocument
  17. Directorate of School Education. (1992). Evaluation of School Reorganization: Interim Report for the Minister of School Education (Vol. 1). Melbourne, Victoria: Directorate of School Education.Google Scholar
  18. Directorate of School Education, Victoria. (1993). Schools of the future: Preliminary paper. Melbourne: Directorate of School Education.Google Scholar
  19. Fowler, W.J. (1995). School size and student outcomes. In H.J. Walberg (Series Ed.) & B. Levin, W.J. Fowler, Jr., & H.J. Walberg (Vol. Eds.), Advances in Educational Productivity: Vol. 5. Organizational Influences on Educational Productivity. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 3-25.Google Scholar
  20. Goldstein, H. (1987). Multilevel Modelling in Educational and Social Research. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
  21. Hannan, W. (1985). Democratic Curriculum: Essays on Schooling and Society. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Harrington, M. & Winter, G. (2002). Commonwealth funding for schools since 1996. [On line]. Available: www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn48.htm.
  23. Independent Schools Council of Australia. (2004). Independent Update Issue 4: Choice and Diversity Need Support. Canberra: Independent Schools Council of Australia.Google Scholar
  24. Karmel, P. (Chair). (1973). Schools in Australia. Report of the Interim Committee of the Australian Schools Commission. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  25. Keating, J., Lamb, S., & Clark, K. (2005). Student resource package for non-traditional locations: Summary report to the Department of Education and Training. Melbourne: Centre for Post-compulsory education and lifelong learning, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  26. Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Australia and the United States using TIMSS. Australian Journal of Education, 46 (2), 154-171.Google Scholar
  27. Lamb, S., Rumberger, R., Jesson, D., & Teese, R. (2004a). School performance in Australia: results from analyses of school effectiveness. Report for the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet, Melbourne, Victoria. Available: http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/govrel/reports/schoolperformance-rpt.pdf
  28. Lamb, S., Long, M., & Baldwin, G. (2004). Performance of the Australian education and training system. Report for the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet, Melbourne, Victoria. Available: http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/CA256D800027B102/Lookup/CommonwealthStateRelationsreport/$file/perf%20of%20aust%20education.pdf
  29. Lamb, S., Walstab, A., Teese, R., Vickers, M., & Rumberger, R. (2004b). Staying on at school: improving student retention in Australia [On line]. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Education and the Arts. Available: http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/studentretention_main_file.pdf
  30. Lee, V.E., & Smith, J.B. (1997). High school size: What works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19 (3), 205-227.Google Scholar
  31. Ministerial Council on Employment, Education Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2004). Key statistics on Australian schooling(and previous years) [On line]. Available: http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/anr2004/pdfs/2004appendix1_stats.pdf
  32. Ministerial Review of Post-compulsory Schooling, Victoria. (1985). Report of the Ministerial Review of Post-compulsory Schooling. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.Google Scholar
  33. Ministry of Education and Training, Victoria. (1989). District provision. Comprehensive curriculum provision within a district: School reorganization. Melbourne, Victoria: Ministry of Education and Training.Google Scholar
  34. Ministry of Education and Training, Victoria. (1991). District provision. District Reviews of Curriculum Provision (Booklets 1 - 6). Melbourne, Victoria: Ministry of Education and Training.Google Scholar
  35. Nelson, B. (2004, August 26). Making schools better[On line]. Speech by Dr Brendan Nelson, Australian Government Minister for Education, Science and Training at the Making Schools Better Conference, University of Melbourne. Available: http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/media/nelson/2004/08/n901260804.asp
  36. Novak, J. (2006). Choice matters: What needs to change to make schools competitive? [On line]. Policy Magazine, 22 (1), 3-28. Sydney: Centre for Independent Studies. Available: www.cis.org.au/Policy/autumn06/autumn06_05.pdfGoogle Scholar
  37. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2001). Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  38. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2005). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2005. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  39. Plecki, M. (1991, April 3-7). The relationship between elementary school size and student achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  40. Pusey, M. (1975). Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Brisbane: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Method (2nd Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Steifel, L., Berne, R., Iatarola, O., & Frucher, N. (2000). High school size: Effects on budgets and performance in New York City. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 27-39.Google Scholar
  43. Teese, R., Davies, M., Charlton, M., & Polesel, J. (1995). Who Wins at School? Boys and Girls in Australian Secondary Education Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training.Google Scholar
  44. Teese, R., McLean, G., & Polesel, J. (1993). Equity outcomes: A report to the Schools Council’s Task Force on a broadbanded equity program for schools. National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer.Google Scholar
  45. Teese, R., Polesel, J. & Helme, S. (2005). Planning for post-compulsory provision: Identifying the challenges and exploring the options. Melbourne: Centre for Post-compulsory education and lifelong learning, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  46. Whitty,G. , Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market. Camberwell, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Lamb
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneUSA

Personalised recommendations