|
|
|
|
|
 |
Recently, debates over workplace relations and Youth Allowance policies have involved discussion of the class divisions in Australian society. Yet nowhere are class inequalities so acutely evident than in the increasing gulf between public and private education. Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby’s recent address to Melbourne High School on the value of public schooling has nudged the education divide back into the national conversation, raising questions about the role of class politics in education in Australia. Education is not only the process by which accumulated human achievement is transmitted to the children of society, but also the process by which accumulated prestige is transmitted to the children of the wealthy. Despite progressive gains, this remains an issue coloured with the politics of class and social mobility. The private school sector has become a key channel to education, privilege and responsibility. While private school students make up only 37% of the broader population, they make up over 60% of university students, and are, according to University of Melbourne research, are significantly overrepresented in prestigious Law and Medicine programmes. This divide in higher education leads to an overrepresentation of private school graduates in institutions of government, diplomacy, and policymaking, known to be conduits to power and influence. Our two-tiered education system segregates students into public and private institutions from a young age, opening up, for those lucky enough to be born in the right neighbourhood or the right family, a wildly different world of connection and opportunity. In a society where 80% of job opportunities occur only on the hidden market, such coincidences and connections are of special importance. The benefits offered by the private sector are not purely academic, but also personal and cultural. Although increasing numbers of public school children have the option of attending university, the tertiary environment, particularly at our most established institutions, exacerbates this divide. Without the skills in communication and argument, the broader educational experience, and the confidence which the extracurricular engagements prioritised in private schools promote, public school children, no matter how bright, will find it difficult to access the same networks, internships, and opportunities as their privately educated counterparts. Without financial support from their parents, most public school graduates will be unable to spend long periods unemployed, completing the voluntary internships and student society service required for competitive university students to build their resumes and qualifications. Without the shared experiences and common understandings which form in the private schools and wealthy suburbs of Northern Sydney and Eastern Melbourne, they will find it difficult to relate to their privately educated peers, and to break into the networks by which hidden internships, student politics opportunities, and future careers are meted out and distributed. If there is to be a new wave of social mobility and social inclusion in Australia, we must begin to acknowledge, in our national conversation and our policymaking community, that the division between education sectors is not just a ‘choice’ issue, it is a class issue. The State must play a role in ensuring an equal distribution of opportunity. Policy must redefine the relationship between the public and private sectors to affirm commitment to equality of opportunity. This must begin with serious reform of the public funding scheme for private institutions, and a willingness to demand the contribution of private institutions to the broader sector. Funding reform and facilities sharing arrangements may be two such reforms. If public funding of private institutions continues, it must be fair and consistent. The Socioeconomic Status Funding Model, which the federal government uses to distribute more than $6b to the private schools every year, bases the extent of subsidies on the combined average socioeconomic status of the communities in which students’ homes are located. Theoretically, this system could fairly distribute funds toward schools with more high-cost students (such as disadvantaged, disabled, English as a Second Language, or Indigenous students), but its application has been incoherent. A no-loss agreement in the SES model guarantees funding levels prior to the introduction of the system. This means that schools drawing from high SES areas which would theoretically lose public funding under the model will have their subsidies guaranteed at pre-SES levels. This has resulted in private sector overfunding with no return in terms of accessibility or accountability. In 2007 only 46% of private schools were funded according to their SES scores. The current SES system fails to impose reciprocal obligations on the part of institutions to contain fee inflation or improve accessibility through scholarship programmes. If private school funding is to occur fairly in the future, the no-loss clause in the SES model must be abolished, and accountability and accessibility obligations must be imposed. These changes will allow the SES system to function as a regulatory framework, rather than simply as a subsidy programme. The emerging gulf in extracurricular and ‘soft skills’ development essential to career development can be addressed in a similarly straightforward manner. If public funding of private schools is to continue, the facilities and specialist staff of these schools, which make high-cost programmes such as debating, high level competitive sport, and music possible, could be made available to nearby public schools. This simple reform could open up a vast array of extra-curricular opportunities to public school students otherwise inaccessible simply because their schools and parents do not have the wealth required to provide them. These are not radical but principled reforms. They provide tangible ways to better integrate the two sectors, and they represent a belief and investment in the role of the state in promoting equality of opportunity. Public subsidisation for private schools can be a powerful tool to aid accessibility to the private sector and open more schooling choices for parents and students, but only if administered in an equitable and accountable fashion. By redefining the relationship between public and private sectors in this way, we can move toward closing the divide between them, ensuring that class is not a defining feature of our education system. Things to Do Digg it Save This Page
Opening Up Closing the Gap |
|
|
||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
| © Copyright 2010 Australian Fabians. All Rights Reserved. |
Education in Australia - A World of Hidden Opportunity
