According to the shadow minister for education, Christopher Pyne, something remarkable is going on in Australia's schools. Apparently, through some astonishing quirk, all the worst teachers have ended up in the schools with the kids from the most disadvantaged backgrounds!
You won't believe it, but the worst performing 10 per cent of students are not randomly drawn from across Australia's schools but tend to be concentrated in mostly public schools in our most disadvantaged areas. Pyne blames their teachers, but is he right?
Pyne argues that we don't have an equity problem in our education system and that the socio-economic background of the family a child is born into doesn't have a significant effect on their results at school. But the world over, the one thing education experts agree on is that socio-economic background is the best and most consistent predictor of success or otherwise at school.
However, from his Lateline appearance this week, it seems Christopher Pyne may not understand what equity actually is. He may have been sick the day St Ignatius Adelaide explained the basic democratic principle that all people are created equal, even if their circumstances are not; the more equitable a society, the smaller the gaps between the rich and poor.
When asked why, if equity is not an issue, the bottom 10 per cent of math's students in Shanghai perform at a level that is 21 months ahead of the bottom 10 per cent of Australian students, Pyne said "the education system is failing our students". No argument there. But when pressed, and asked if dragging students from the bottom up was about equity, he denied it and said it was about parental involvement in schools, principal autonomy, independence for teachers and governing councils for schools.
So, for ex St Ignatius Adelaide student Pyne's sake, let's just look at what constitutes disadvantage and its effect on equity.
Kids with disadvantaged backgrounds tend to come from a disproportionate number of single parent households, with very low incomes, high levels of stress, very low educational achievement on the part of the family, often going back many generations and with what are now termed co-morbidities like drug and alcohol abuse and mental health problems.
Let's look at how Pyne's solutions might work for families like these and what effect they might therefore have on individual kids already struggling with unfair levels of difficulty.
1. Parental involvement in schools.
Parents who themselves failed at school, who are mentally ill, struggling to work, pay bills and raise kids on a single income, are the most unlikely to get involved in their child's education. Unlike nice middle class families, school is an alien environment to them. If they are functionally illiterate themselves, school reminds them of their failure and shame. They are highly unlikely to get involved without considerable encouragement.
With encouragement they can get involved, but this takes time and money. Without it their involvement will remain inequitable. And, as they watch the quality and reputation of their child's school fall further as a result, they will become even more alienated. It becomes what is termed a negative spiral. Worse, another thing we know for certain from research done all over the world, is that putting disadvantaged kids together in the same schools — as we increasingly do in Australia — compounds the disadvantage, making the downward spiral even more precipitous.
2. Principal autonomy
This is not necessarily a bad idea. If Principals are going to be held responsible for outcomes, they need to have some leverage over inputs. But, once again, if we hand over responsibility without recognition that some schools and Principals are dealing with much tougher social problems than others then we can only deepen inequity.
These schools already find it hard to attract principals; applications are falling for principal's jobs in NSW and, particularly, in Victoria. Schools serving disadvantaged families will find it even harder to attract candidates, unless we offer incentives — in terms of pay and support. Disadvantaged schools may struggle with revolving acting principals and high staff churn. To be frank, many already do.
3. Independence for teachers in what they teach.
Actually I have the most sympathy for this solution. Gillard's standardised testing and centralised curriculum are squeezing the time teachers have to engage their students in learning. They are being forced to teach to the test. Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds lack cultural capital. Teachers need to be able to help such children catch up at their own pace. This takes time, skill and sensitivity. One size definitely does not fit all.
Middle class kids walk through the school gate better equipped than their disadvantaged peers. At the moment that advantage gap not only remains, but expands throughout school. Teachers need to be able to respond. In really tough classrooms, they may need extra literacy and student support staff — all currently being cut in NSW public schools. Larger class sizes will also not work in such schools — though they might be fine for St Ignatius.
And improving teacher training, paying teachers more and firing bad teachers are all fine ideas. Trouble is we are already short on principals and have chronic shortages in science and maths teachers across the country. The average age of teachers is now over 50; they're about to start retiring in droves. Far from picking and choosing, many schools will be grateful for any warm body prepared to stand at the front of a class. No prizes for guessing which schools will find it hardest to attract good staff in an increasingly competitive employment market.
4. Governing councils for schools.
Once again, this can only advantage the advantaged. Middle class families who care about and understand education, who are confident about their own cultural capital and used to dealing with authority successfully and on equal terms will be an asset to their school. They may, of course, drive the staff of the school crazy — one reason, perhaps, why Victoria has such a shortage of people willing to be principals. That state has had Governing Councils for more than a decade. No noticeable effect on equity as yet, though. Indeed, there is no research that shows that such governance changes do anything to improve equity or even educational outcomes.
If, as looks likely, the Opposition wins the next election and the new Minister for Education doesn't receive some intense remedial work on the actual meaning of equity, expect all of these problems to get worse. The Liberals are now saying said they will not implement Gonski, claiming it will cost $113 billion, not the $5 billion Gonski estimated. I find it hard to understand how that's an argument for starving disadvantaged schools further.
But, tell you what, Mr Pyne: the public schools of Australia, particularly those servicing our most disadvantaged communities, will happily accept the lesser amount. You have no idea what a difference an extra $100,000 (even an extra $10,000) can make to a disadvantaged school.
Another sign of inequity, in fact, may be that while $100,000 is a drop in a bucket for some Australian schools — four students' fees in some cases — it is more discretionary money at one time than some schools have ever seen.
Print
Dr Dog
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 - 12:38
This article presents a much more nuanced response to Christpher Pyne than I would make, which is simply to ask him "How the fuck would you know, Pyne, you private school twit?"
AxeEugene
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 - 12:57
Astounding it is how those whom do the most real work in our society cop the most abuse and lowest pay per hour. I've worked as professional cleaner for 30 years, we now earn less than we did in the 80s.
Meanwhile bloated administration industry membership howl victim hood. Pathetic.
Rockjaw
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 - 14:32
Good on you Jane!!
Stripling
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 - 17:13
Stripling
We have known that the optimum class size in high school is 32 for several decades-yet once again a fervent emotionally choked rant from the would be education minister that does nothing to address the actual biggest problem in public education.
Instead a pejorative form of dialogue aimed at the teachers who are posted to the most disadvantaged areas-generally young teachers, the people who have just graduated our wonderful education system-so how does that look to the teenagers going to school?
So what is his real solution? Pay the best teachers-who and where are they?-more and downscale everybody else on the good old Roman Slave Cohort System-previously called Work Choices.
WAKE UP FRIENDS.
The collapse of the lower middle class was the precursor to the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage belt in America, and for some time now, little bit by little bit that is what is happening here. Crucifying teachers, and areas, in a digital colosseum may seem like the answer, particularly if your in the "free Bread area"of the viewing grandstand waiting for the leopard show-until it is your profession that is on the crucufixion list.
How about starting with what is actually required and then work the budget out from there, instead of starting with the budget and distributing it on a Gini Index of Inequality with a second differential that screams "Fractal Chaos?"
In terms of calling in the parents to form some sort of KPI lynch mob-last time you went to the dentist did you take you friends and family to tell him how to drill your teeth?
O. Puhleez
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 - 20:14
Pyne is a federal politician. Before entering parliament, he was a solicitor. A lawyer. (How unusual!)
Pyne is a member of the fanatically free-market and deregulation obsessed federal Coalition. The law however is an area of Australian economy and life which has managed to remain highly regulated while all around it deregulation and globalisation have run rampant. (A most strange anomaly, perhaps related to the fondness of lawyers for Liberal Party membership, and the fondness of the state Liberal Party organisations for keeping the lawyers happy. And well protected.)
So we don't have cut-price lawyers on every street corner, and entry to the legal profession is an expensive hurdle race. Contacts and an old-boy network come in very handy, particularly if one is ambitious.
Pyne is the Federal Member for Sturt, SA. In the 63 years sine 1949, the seat has been held by an ALP member for only four years. So Pyne has been parachuted into a safe Liberal seat: protected yet again. This makes him eminently well UNqualified to rabbit on about the needs of disadvantaged schools and kids, though eminently well qualified on how to make their situation worse.
Though clearly ignorant of the sociology of education, Pyne is also clearly well qualified to represent the Liberal Party's understanding of and interest in the subject. All that will matter to the next Liberal government will be what mattered most to the last one: pork-barreling of Liberal voters and middle-class welfare.
jackal01
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 - 23:19
Rockjaw amazing you and I agree on something.
Yes Jane does well.
I'm waiting for law to go the same way as Health.
In health they created specialists to create more positions available to all those Graduates hoping to get into a job. They can't all become Cancer researchers.
So now its 1st the GP at $55 then you get the specialist at $100 just to tell you what the GP could have told you, if he was a Doctor.
Its got to come, why are their so many Lawyers in the Liberal Party.
Australias 3 longest serving Prime Ministers were all part of law once.
Dr David Horton
Posted Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 16:06
Nicely done Jane. I saw somewhere that the Shanghai school used for comparison was a selective high school with much cramming. You might check that, but it looks like the comparison was deliberately chosen by Mr Pyne to be apples and oranges, or perhaps champagne and small beer.
I am very afraid, among other fears, that just two terms of an Abbott govt, perhaps less, will see an effective end to Australian public education. Pyne has absolutely no interest in poor children's education, he is a small govt ideologue.
Rockjaw
Posted Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 18:37
Dr Horton, the size of government should have absolutely no bearing on our obligation to ensure that every Australian child is granted access to an equal and acceptable minimum level of funding for education.
The size government should be entirely irrelevant when these obligations surrounding the education of Australian children is assessed.
There are those who would argue that the lack of funding currently available is the result of a large and growing government.
Neither argument is relevant.
Ashar
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 11:32
Thanks Jane for a great article. The attitutde towards public education in Australia is indeed appauling. When I was working in the University system, and volunteering at a local high-school I was gobsmacked at the complete lack of interest in meeting the needs of vulnerable communities by the State Governments who have the primary duty of care here, and the swathes of hollow words from their federal counterparts.
What I did notice was the striking resemblance both Labor and Coalition policy has to US policy. The state of the US public education system is by all measures in a worse position than Australia, and current union-busting and charter school policies have seen it heading further down-hill. We are being rorted.
I very much enjoyed your statements on Q&A last night, in particular your addressing "That Which cannot Be Said" that both major political parties have absolutely zero interest in vulnerable peoples within the education sector. I noticed too, how this was acknowledged with nuerotic laughter, and then ignored. That is public censorship, working as intended - we more commonly call it framing the debate.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. DrGideonPolya
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 12:18
Excellent article and an excellent, impassioned performance by Jane Caro on Q&A (see: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3546943.htm ).
The core issue is educational inequity that must be URGENTLY addressed by focussed funding to ensure (a) that the majority of Australian children attending State schools are no longer disproportionately excluded from a decent education, university, top universities and top courses and (b) that hundreds of thousands of children who are several years or more behind their peers are urgently brought up to scratch (see "Educational Apartheid": https://sites.google.com/site/educationalapartheid/ ).
Thus , for example, Professor Helen Hughes AO on gross Educational Apartheid for Indigenous children from urban welfare dependent families or remote communities (2008): “Australia, however, has a serious problem in low participation in higher education by students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Indigenous children from urban welfare dependent families, just like non-Indigenous children from similar welfare dependent backgrounds, have very low participation in higher education. The mainstream schools they attend – the so-called “sink” schools – do not provide adequate primary and secondary education to enable these children to proceed to university. Children from remote communities are even more disadvantaged because Indigenous schools in those communities fail to teach basic literacy and numeracy, let alone a full primary curriculum. For these children, the chances of progressing to higher education are negligible. The few Indigenous students from urban welfare dependent families or remote communities who qualify for university entrance are almost always those whose parents have them board with relatives to access quality mainstream schools, or those at quality boarding schools on scholarships, Current government school reform programs do not even aim to eliminate Indigenous schooling deficits (“close the education gap”) by 2018. Under current programs, ten years from now, most Indigenous children from urban welfare dependent backgrounds and remote communities will still be excluded from for [sic] higher education by their sub-standard education… To put it simply, id children are not taught to read, write and count, they have no hope of going to university.. No amount of affirmative action will make any difference.” (see Helen Hughes, “The Centre for Independent Studies submission to the Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aborigjnal and Torres Straits Islander People”, 18 November 2011: http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/submissions/sub-review-of-higher-ed... . )
The Liberals show a callous disregard of our children , and the neocon Laborals (the ALP, the Australian Laboral Party, the Alternative Liberal Party, Another Liberal Party, the Apartheid Labor Party) know what they should do but won't do it.
Labor has utterly betrayed its own "safe" constitutency - the battler suburbs - and decent people will accordingly vote 1 Green and put Labor last until it reverts to decent values, not least of which is putting children first.
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
Geofferoo
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 13:41
I believe there is one member of the shadow cabinet who was educated at a public school.
That's right. One.
You can bet your life none of their kids actually attend public schools.
They have nothing invested, literally or figuratively, in public education.
Give this claque of born-to-rulers and crazy-eyed religious loons a large majority and they will take to public education with a meat cleaver, and funnel more and more resources into the elite private schools and confessional kook factories that produce their support base.
No matter what patriotic poppycock they spew, they are fundamentally hostile to Australia's traditions, including sound public education.
This country is walking into an Abbott-led disaster.
fightmumma
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 13:57
Excellent article Jane! I worked as a cleaner for an executive couple whose children went to an elite private school - they seriously believed that public students SHOULD get a worse education than their children - they'd say "we've paid, so we should get a better education." That is the mentality of Pyne's private-school attitude towards disadvantaged people.
I have worked as a casual teacher in many disadvantaged schools.
In one classroom the parents didn't know how to make their prep boy a sandwich for his lunch, so the teachers were teaching the parents how to feed their son while he was at school - I'd love to see how Pyne believes his ideas would work with such parents!
I have seen many children whose parents don't even "parent" them, being absent much of the time - drinking at a kidfree venue, pokies or god-knows-what (these children become bullies at school, one tortured animals for a hobby)...how does Pyne think these children become engaged with education, with sitting still for longer than 10 minutes, with having respect for authority?
Pyne is a career politician who has lived no other life than within that institution and other "sheltered" institutions such as his private school - this is one problem I have with our style of government...how does a solicitor get to be an expert on education, equity and disadvantage?
Short answer = he doesn't.
So why should he be influencing education on any other level than as a parent at his own 4 kids' schools?
Short answer = he shouldn't.
By ignoring well-founded, researched and professionally agreed upon statistics and patterns regarding socioeconomic status and education outcomes - Pyne openly displays his ignorance and lack of smarts...get him away from public schools please!! (Socioeconomic status is also a determining factor for health and obesity...and parliamentary participation too!!)
Perhaps Pyne would prefer to spend the money that COULD be spent on public schools within our prison system? Same as mental health spending...the people our system lets down by not providing equitable outcomes..they end up in our prisons STILL costing taxpayer dollars - so why not be radical and do something positive...or does he hold shares in GEO Group Australia?
steveintianjin
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 14:03
I've read a lot recently about socio-economic disadvantage putting some students permanently behind their more advantaged peers. No-one seems to talk about helping the parents support their children, by, for example, providing parents with classes to upgrade their literacy and numeracy skills, or at the very least provide "cheat-sheets" with homework so the parents can learn with their children. Focusing the whole responsibility for addressing socio-economic disadvantage on the student seems to be a far to narrow approach to me. As Jane Caro says, parents who themselves have failed are unlikely to be able to productively contribute academically in the school environment (although this should not exlcude them from contributing in other ways, such as at sports days, being audiences for their childs performances, and of course, tuckshop!) . Maybe schools should be funded to meet the additional social responsibility of helping parents help their kids.
Homerjunior
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 14:40
To be fair to Christopher Pyne, his policy prescriptions are for the average child from an average family. Not for the disadvantaged.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. paul walter
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 15:24
Pyne's QA effort certainly suggested the Cameron-ish tone of a prospective Abbot Tory government: harsh, strident, wilfully impervious to reason or logic and on a crusade to restore the privilege of privilege.
Watch it people- the Tea Party phenomenon is coming to a theatre near you.
krispy
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 15:46
krisp 'n krunchy
Great that someone is standing up for public education and principles of equality which seem to be eroding in all sectors, faster than we can blink. If the Libs get in, there will be so much blinking it will turn to tears in seconds. Your defence of equality warms my heart. No-one in politics is doing so, that's for sure.
ps I can't bring myself to say "when the libs get in" as everyone else is saying; surely there might be a miracle. Jane can you help here???? The Greens are the new Labor, Labor is the new Liberal, the Liberals are the new??? Any suggestions folks?
How about a New Labor party to fill the gap on the left? Any takers? Any suggestions? (not Bob Katter)
This user is a New Matilda supporter. GarryB
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 16:07
In terms of equity and social capital, how can Pyne equate the opportunities of a student whose home does not boast even one book (discovered when the teacher asked about a bookshelf!) and other public school students who travel abroad at least once a year, not to mention the reading material,technology and parental experience
available to them. Only the wilfully blind could dismiss such disparity as irrelevant.
fightmumma
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 18:18
homerjunior - so to be fair to Pyne, it is acceptable for him to completely ignore a significant portion of the population? Yeah - great - THAT always helps one's statistics, just mak policies without considering your entire population...that just makes him look even more ignorant if that is actually possible...
pwinwood
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 18:32
Merlinau
Think about it; what the Liberal's 'attack poodle' has eveloved is what appears to be a compelling mantra (based on shameless misuse of statistics) which effectively 'blames the victims' (a typical Liberal approach. He is cunningly laying the expectation foundation for NO meaningful additional funding for education. Instead he (as the virtually inevitable next Minister for Education) will be long on a policy of 'solve the problem by changing the rules", thereby saving the spending that Gonski rightly identifies as needed on education, so his adored Leader (Abbott) can fund more middle class welfare such as the ridiculous paid parental leave scheme.
fightmumma
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 18:33
stevei - yes these are good ideas. But one point I forgot to mention in my first post, is that schools are very poor communicators to parents and generally the greater disparity between the socioeconomic status of the teachers (upper middle class) and the parents (especially in low soc/ec groupings) means that relationships, communication and attitudes between teachers and parents can be very poor and not at all nurturing of positive outcomes.
I am a 4 year trained teacher and my son's school's principal STILL tries to talk "down" to me, there's no communication and I'm treated as stupid. Especially if I question anything or start pushing for explanations or help for my son.
You can't force people to learn. The best outcome I could ever have as a teacher is to teach my kids to WANT to learn, to have the DESIRE to learn and experience new knowledge, skills etc. This happens by changing motivation, social environments, achievement attitudes. THAT takes PARTNERSHIPS which is something schools do not do well...they take an "us" vs "them" approach with parents, and the more disadvantaged you are, the worse you will be treated. You should hear the conversations of teachers in schools and how they talk about parents and some of their students. It's disgusting. AND one of the reasons I have no interest in working as a teacher anymore...AND why I am seriously thinking of homeschooling my youngest son who is struggling at school.
Homerjunior
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 20:24
fm, I just felt Jane posed the question after poor Christopher had spoken. A bit unfair. How many schools are disadvantaged, as a proportion of the whole?
fightmumma
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 21:08
homerjunior - schools are judged as "disadvantaged" by several measures that are often used within academic research studies and thus professionally valid, legitimate. These include,
Socioeconomic status, geographical situation and indigenous status. Agregates of post codes of the students' home addresses as recorded by Department of Education Training and Youth Afairs ABS,
Population density as distance from provincial centre,
Post codes that fall within the lowest quartile of national population from ABS Index of Education and Occupation,
Parental occupation categories,
Parental education level,
Family Income.
Schools get funding for disadvantage based on Commonwealth Concession Card holders figures for their school.
So this would be A LOT of schools or students/families!
I still resent this approach of fiddling with statistics or definitions of problems or looking at only certain portions of the population and pretending that the whole issue is "fixed" or doesn't exist at all...somewhere out there are still families and students not getting the education that they need (1 in 5 are not adequately literate/numerate) and I could argue that this inequality denied them a democractic life...this is what liberal parties do to make it appear problems don't exist, thus excusing themselves from responsibility and accountability...
fightmumma
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 21:18
p.s. homerjunior - also, there's this nasty cycle of disadvantage where once a community suffers socio-economic disadvantage, the community sees an increase in poor educational outcomes and retention rates, crime, alcohol/drug abuse, suicide, youth disillusionment, domestic violence, mental health issues, gambling, obesity, health issues. This is happening right before people's eyes in America as that society crumbles. Isn't this a cost that is way too high in the long term? Why not save all that waste and heartache and spend the money on better education? We would see savings in the long term in all these other areas, especially areas like crime, which itself causes many other costs in compensation, repair, policing, insurance etc. Why do politicians not see that?
Fractelle
Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 14:11
To the prospective Liberal voter, do you really want a privileged private school educated neo-con responsible for the well being of the majority of Australia's children's education?
Do you believe that such as Pyne can govern fairly for all? Or any of Howard's team who currently hold the reigns of power in the Liberal Party and will do so if elected into Federal office. The more moderate Liberals have been marginalised and are unlikely while Howard's team remain in control.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
jackal01
Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 20:08
fightmumma, its happening because what they want is exactly what you mention, why, privatised Jails will have cheap labour.
fightmumma
Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 22:52
No Jackal, I think they just take the path of least resistance. And considering they are SUPPOSED to be leaders and be contributing towards the best Australian society possible - this is a very irresponsible, lazy and unimaginative way to conduct oneself one's political party or that party's social policies. By doing so, they actually dont' "DO" anything, which IMHO seems to be the main objective of politicians...ie rip off taxpayers' money, LOOK like you're doing something, TALK about doing something, organise an INQUIRY or COMMISSION into doing something and then blame the victims of you actually doing NOTHING by putting them in jail and labelling them "deviant."