Abstract
This chapter explores the sociology of education theme ‘social class’ and presents related findings. Australians once claimed an ‘egalitarian’ nation. This claim appeared rather thin, when the Gonski Report raised awareness of national schooling funding and outcome divides – showing funding models privileged private schools over public schools. Subsequent PISA results further emphasised the comparative educational deficits this divide creates for Australia. Voices of Experience survey data shows students from ‘low-level wealth and resources’ households were over twice as likely to be abused by teachers, than those from ‘high-level wealth and resources’ households. Over half the participants attended schools taking a liberal meritocratic approach to social class. In this approach, aid ‘rewarded’ competitive achievement only. Under a fifth of participants reported that their school took a critical approach actively creating equal outcomes by addressing systemic inequality. This portion significantly increased if the students came from higher wealth backgrounds and significantly reduced if they came from lower wealth backgrounds, showing that the equitable approach was not reaching those schools in most need of it. This highlights problems for Australian schooling’s inequitable funding models once again. Under a fifth of participants reported that their school took a conservative stratified approach where they were offered little opportunity to mix social classes, beyond one-off charitable acts reinforcing class power hierarchies. Students of lower wealth backgrounds in such schools often reported actually being punished over their lack of uniform, technological access and extra-curricular funding. These were lacks students cannot redress. The tenth of participants whose school took a post-modern questioning approach to social class systems were significantly more likely to come from high wealth backgrounds. Tutorial questions for this chapter ask readers to consider concrete elements of their own and others’ schooling which show the approach taken to social class and the social class identity promoted and to consider the overall best approaches.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beder, S. (2000). Selling the work ethic. Australian Rationalist, 55(Spring), 8–13.
Bonnor, C., & Shepherd, B. (2017). Losing the game: State of our schools in 2017. Sydney, NSW: Centre for Policy Development.
Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011). Review of funding for schooling. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.
Hetherington, D. (2018). What price the gap? Education and inequality in Australia. Sydney, NSW: Public Education Foundation.
McQueen, K. (2009). Social class and Australian schooling. In I. Soliman (Ed.), Interrogating common sense: Teaching for social justice (pp. 47–74). Sydney, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
OECD. (2018). Education at a glance 2018. Retrieved 12.02.19 from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2018_eag-2018-en#page162
Takayama, K., Jones, T., & Amazan, R. (2017). Thinking with/through the contradictions of social justice in teacher education: Self-reflection on our NETDS experience. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Accepted, 27(03), 17.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jones, T. (2020). Social Class: Australian Schools Won’t Merit the Need. In: A Student-centred Sociology of Australian Education. Critical Studies of Education, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36863-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36863-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36862-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36863-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)