Does Australia have one of the most unequal education systems in the OECD?
The Left-leaning article below answers 'No' to that question but still searches for something to whine about. They are up against it however -- as they concede that "Australia’s level of equity was not particularly different to that of many other OECD countries. New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Germany".
What they look at is how big is the achievement gap between well-off and poor kids. And in the Australian case they admit that the gap is not due to lack of "resources" (mostly meaning money spent per pupil). So insofar as the gap is largeish in Australia, it is probably due to Australia's huge network of government-subsidized private schools. 40% of Australian teenagers go to private schools. And there is no doubt that such schools do have some beneficial effect on exam performance and other indications of educational achievement. Well-off kids get better schooling in Australia
Is that unjust? Maybe it is but it is not beyond remedy. Australian government schools for many years modelled their curricula and procedures on famous British private schools such as Eton. I was one product of that system (including compulsory Latin!) and the excellent education I got from it has definitely helped make my life easier and richer. I shudder at the impoverished and propaganda-laden curricula of today.
With their constant imposition of unproven and unsuccessful educational theories, the Left have destroyed the old system. But it shows what is possible. Government schools CAN provide a high quality education. All you have to do is to go by what works
As the debate around public and private schooling in Australia rages on, writer and social commentator Jane Caro told the Q&A audience that Australia has one of the most unequal education systems in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Is that right? When asked for sources to support her assertion, Caro referred The Conversation to a 2015 report published by the Australian Council of Educational Research.
The report analysed results from the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) among countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and noted: "the general relationship between the overall level of schools’ educational resources and the resources gap between socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged schools. Where resources are high, the gap tends to be low, and where resources are low, the gap tends to be high"
The OECD analysis also showed that, contrary to the general pattern, Australia has a high level of resources as well as a high level of inequity in the allocation of those resources. Australia’s overall level of schools’ educational resources is above the OECD average, yet it is ranked fifth among 36 participating countries in resource disparity between advantaged and disadvantaged schools.
Caro also sent The Conversation an article published by the Save Our Schools organisation titled OECD Report Highlights Education Inequity in Australia, and the PISA 2009 results report published by the OECD.
What the data shows is that Australia is not the worst or nearly the worst when it comes to equality and our education system.
However, it is true there is a great deal of evidence that Australia’s education system is very unequal. The level of equity is not getting better and if anything, it is getting worse.
What do we mean by ‘unequal’? The best tool for understanding how equal or unequal the Australian education system is compared to other OECD education systems is the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
Equity in PISA refers to how well students do on cognitive tests according to their socioeconomic background (SES).
Socioeconomic background is measured in PISA by taking into account parental occupation and education, access to home educational and cultural resources, family wealth, and books in the home.
According to PISA’s measure, “unequal” means there are large differences in the outcomes of high SES and low SES students. In other words, it’s when kids from wealthy or well-off households consistently get better test results than kids from poorer families.
In the 2000 PISA report, Australia’s performance in PISA reading literacy was indeed referred to as “high quality – low equity”. In other words, Australia’s achievement was higher than the OECD average but in terms of equity, Australia was below the OECD average.
In reading, in particular, Australia continues to fall into the category of high-quality - low or average equity.
In mathematics and science – subjects that less likely to rely on parental involvement and resources than reading literacy – this is not the case. In these subjects, Australia falls into the high-quality - high-equity quadrant.
‘Among the worst’? While Australia’s performance in PISA reading literacy has been classed as low equity, Australia’s level of equity was not particularly different to that of many other OECD countries. New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Germany (among others) were also classed as low equity when it came to reading literacy.
Saying we are “among the worst” may stretching it a bit – but this is splitting hairs. The data supports the overall point that Caro was making: Australia does have a schooling system that is not equitable.
Based on data from PISA:
There is a gap of about 2.5 years of schooling in mathematical literacy between students in the highest SES quartile and those in the lowest quartile.
Low achievement is strongly associated with low SES. In both mathematics and reading literacy, low SES students comprised about 45% of all low performing students while students from the second lowest quartile accounted for a further 29%. Just 10% of students of low performers were from the highest SES quartile.
Australia shows a high level of variation in reading literacy performance due to SES differences between schools
A recent re-analysis of the PISA 2012 data found that a socioeconomically disadvantaged student in Australia was six times more likely to be a low performer than an advantaged student. After taking account of several other factors influencing school performance such as gender, immigrant and language background, family structure, urban or rural location, pre-primary education and grade repetition, a socioeconomically disadvantaged student is still five times more likely to be a low performer than an advantaged student.
While all Australian schools report adequate educational resources, schools with a large proportion of low performing students report much lower levels of these resources than schools with a large proportion of high performing students.
Between 2000 and 2009, Australian secondary schools became more differentiated in reading achievement. That differentiation became more strongly linked to the average socioeconomic context of the school.
Verdict: Australia doesn’t have one of the most unequal education systems in the OECD. However, there is good evidence that our schooling system is not equitable.