Putting a Price on Education - The Cost of Marketisation in Australian Schooling

Putting a Price on Education: The Cost of Marketisation in Australian Schooling

Travis Robinson

The Cost of Marketisation in Australian Schooling

Introduction - Education in a Global Marketplace

The merging of educational and economic goals has led to greater inequality amongst social

classes in Australia and abroad. Stemming from the need to have a globally competitive

economy, neoliberal ideologies have been cemented in the political sphere and heavily

influence the direction of policy (Bagnall, 2010; Morsy, Gulson, & Clarke, 2014).

Neoliberalism promotes free markets and deregulation, with the aim of developing efficient

markets to increase innovation and productivity (Morsy et al., 2014). The introduction of

these ideologies into education had the intention of producing a workforce that will meet

economic needs, but this has secondary implications for different groups within society

(Windle, 2009; Bagnall, 2010). Criticisms of this approach argue that ‘success’ in this

societal structure is dictated largely by income and social class, which leaves those that are

already economically disadvantaged with further challenges in meeting educational outcomes

(Morsy et al., 2014).

Marketisation in an educational context has led to a residualised public school system, with

parents seeking to put their children at a ‘positional good’ to access better life chances

(Davies & Bansel, 2007; Morsy et al., 2014). This risidualisation takes the shape of larger

percentages of wealthy families enrolling their children in the private schooling sector

(Windle, 2009), which leaves public classrooms with cultural capital that is less able to

compete with that in other schools (Thomson, 2003). I argue that this is also occurring within

public schools, as academically gifted students are selected to participate in specialist

programs such as the Select Entry Accelerated Learning (SEAL) classes. The implementation

of these classes are designed to meet the needs of gifted students, including more rigorous

academic material and in depth class discourse. However, they also meet needs created by

marketisation, as public schools try to position themselves near the top of the education

market (Windle, 2009). This ethnography will examine how attempts by public schools to

1


improve market standing impact mainstream students. All names of people and locations

herein are given pseudonyms.

The School and Local Demographic

The research site, henceforth Bayside, is a government school close to Port Phillip Bay in the

south-east suburbs of Melbourne. Resulting from a past merger of several local schools,

Bayside has two campuses – separated into junior (Year 7 to Year 10) and senior (Year 11

and Year 12) years and has a total of 982 students currently enrolled. The area surrounding

Bayside has been increasingly gentrified over past years with a gradual increase in the

average index of community socio-educational advantage (ICSEA) rating of school attendees

(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2015). In 2015,

10% of students were in the bottom quarter, 23% in the lower middle quarter, 35% in the

upper middle quarter and 32% in the top quarter, showing a lean towards upper classes

(ACARA, 2015). This advantage is also conveyed by the representation of occupations in the

area. Compared to the national average, there were 12.8% more professionals, 8.8% more

managers and 6.8% less labourers (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2011) highlighting

the dominant type of cultural capital in the school.

My interactions took place within the junior campus, and prominently examined science

classes. The majority of Bayview’s buildings were a light timber style of average quality,

having been built in the late 1950’s, with the exception of their new science laboratories

having been built over the course of 2015 and opening for use in 2016. These laboratories

were well decorated with scientific artefacts and student work. This had a noticeable impact

on how the student body valued science; classes were vibrant, enthusiastic and eager to

participate compared to classes in other disciplines.

Performance of Bayview

2


Firstly, I will introduce two other schools, S1 and S2, and then examine their school

demographics and performance comparative to Bayview using their results from the National

Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). S1 is a metropolitan government

school and had notably more Language Background Other than English (LBOTE) students

than Bayview (39% and 20%, respectively). S2 is a metropolitan Catholic school with only

6% of students identifying as LBOTE (ACARA, 2015). Bayview and S2 offer Vocational

Education and Training (VET) options to students (with 33% and 19% enrolled, respectively)

while only 1% of S1 are enrolled (ACARA, 2015). Despite their differences in demographic

and pathway options, these schools scored similarly on the NAPLAN test. This article will

only examine the results for Year 7 to maintain a manageable scope.

Table 1.

NAPLAN results for Year 7 students in each school

School Reading Persuasive Writing Spelling Punctuation and Grammar Numeracy

Bayview 565 512 549 552 561

S1 566 534 556 559 555

S2 565 528 542 567 551

Nat. Av. 546 511 547 541 543

Note: All data retrieved from ACARA (2015)

Each of these schools performed above or well above the national average, with the exception

of S2 for Spelling, which scored just below the average (As shown in Table 1). Examination

of the ICSEA rating of each school shows similarities with Bayview and S1 both having a

value of 1069 and S2 having a value of 1067; all above the national average of 1000

(ACARA, 2015). This is further reflected in the distribution of ICSEA amongst students (As

shown in Table 2).

3


Table 2.

Percentage of students in each school within each ICSEA Quartile

School Bottom Quarter Lower-Middle Quarter Upper-Middle Quarter Top Quarter

Bayview 10% 23% 35% 32%

S1 12% 22% 32% 34%

S2 11% 25% 33% 31%

Note: National average is 25% for each quarter

Each of these schools performs well compared to the national average with a common thread

of having greater societal advantages compared to other schools. This aligns with Morsy et al.

(2014) who argue that the average social standing of a school is a greater dictator of

performance than the quality of the teaching or whether the school is from the private or

public sector.

SEAL and Marketisation

The SEAL program is presented in a variety of ways, but the impact of marketisation is clear

from much of the school’s promotional material. The school’s website describes the program

as being “designed to enhance academic, creative and leadership potential” and having

“specifically selected teachers, chosen for their passion, superior teaching ability, their skill

with challenging and engaging gifted students.” This follows from the claim by Alagumalai,

Burley and Keeves (2013) that when classes are streamed by ability, higher streams are given

access to higher quality teaching staff and resources. This has consequences for students

within the lower steams (such as students not in the SEAL program) as they receive lower

quality materials and teaching time (Alagumalai et al., 2013).

When I arrived at Bayview, the first class I was invited to observe were SEAL classes. Staff

described the success of the program, remarked on students’ adherence to school norms and

4


the improvements to student outcomes. This iterated the value that staff place on the SEAL

program and those whose academic values align with their own; the students in the program.

With government policy promoting parental choice as a cornerstone of Australian education

(Government of Victoria, 2006), public schools are restricted in how they can compete with

the disproportionate spending on private sector schools (Windle, 2009). SEAL classes are

used by public schools to navigate the effects of this policy and capitalise on parents’ desire

to position their children ahead of others (Morsy et al., 2014).

Perceptions of Mainstream Students – Class in the Class

Towards the end of one of the SEAL classes I observed, a few students in the back row were

discussing the effect of parenting and home life on the educational outcomes of students.

Students remarked that they couldn’t understand why a particular group of students remained

at school when they were so disengaged with classes. One student remarked that she

imagined it was difficult when their parents “don’t give them any support” and “don’t care

about their education.” She explained that these parents were renowned for substance abuse

and that their children consequently had similar issues with drugs. The SEAL students

identified these students that don’t conform to academic success as being different to them

and that they impact negatively on their own educational experiences.

I couldn’t help but engage with the line of discussion to more closely explore how they felt

about this group of students and their plight. I asked the students “Where should these

children be educated if not here?” One student responded that they should have their “own

school that meets their particular needs.” This comment was not of selfish intent, but about

meeting each students’ needs and aspirations, without inconveniencing another. Further

unpacking conveyed that she felt helpless to change their circumstances as she believed

5


parenting was the more dominant influence. This separation of groups with different values is

embedded within the Australian school system and reflects how difference is ‘managed.’

Impact on students

Academic outcomes are promoted to students who conform to behavioural expectations and

meet the values espoused by their teachers (Mills, 2009). While students who don’t meet

these expectations are presented with alternative options (such as VET), this can be seen as a

means of reproducing the class systems already in place (O'Flynn & Petersen, 2007).

Running SEAL programs residualises mainstream classes, leaving mainstream classes with

less valuable discourses and, consequently, a diminished quality of education (Alagumalai et

al., 2013). The prominence of neoliberalism within educational policy results in students and

their parents concentrating on their education (Davies & Bansel, 2007). This sees a

disconnect between those who meet the expectations of schools and teachers and those that

don’t, as seen by my interactions with students.

Impact on teachers

With pressure being put on teachers to perform well, we see pedagogy taking a focus on

outcomes. Staff were visibly less invested in mainstream classes and spent less time and

effort on those students. Teachers remarked that although mainstream students were well

behaved they were “a little bit slower” than SEAL students. These generalisations that

teachers applied to the classes and students therein reflected their practice. Even within

mainstream classes, I observed teachers give no attention or teaching time to a group of

student who weren’t engaged with the work. Teachers explained that they expected the

student to join VET so “not to bother with them” as it “won’t make a difference.” Staff

neglected to invest in students that didn’t meet the educational needs of the school.

Impacts on the school:

6


Public schools are faced with complex challenges in effectively competing in the educational

market. SEAL programs are a response to this need and serve to give public schools a

neoliberalist selling point to remain competitive with other school sectors. Schools that

implement SEAL programs must be mindful of the divisions that these programs perpetuate

and the overall impact it has on the quality of teaching and learning within its grounds. In the

same way that the public sector has been residualised, we see classrooms within public

schools being residualised to meet the demands of a marketised education.

Global Discussion for a Global Issue

Marketisation affects education on a global scale and neoliberalist policies are seen to be

implemented in a large number of countries (Dei & Karumanchery, 1999; Windle, 2009;

Bagnall, 2010). With the prominence of economic goals with the education system we see a

shift away from equitable education and towards meeting the needs of select portions of

society (Dei & Karumanchery, 1999; Morsey et al., 2014).

Dei and Karumanchery (1999) argue that in response to neoliberal policy in Canada, an

integrative antiracist discursive framework can be applied to create a more equitable

education system. This approach examines how local communities (such as students, parents

and educators) interact with and in the school system and argues the importance of race,

class, gender and sexuality in students’ schooling experience. By directly engaging with

equity issues and creating discussion around social oppression concurrently with the way

forms of difference shape identity for students can promote community cohesion and disrupt

the current pattern of inequity (Dei & Karumanchery, 1999).

It is important that this be considered in an Australian context so we might see education

reform reflect a more balanced position. This should contribute to the education of all

Australians and relieve some of the effects of institutionalised disadvantage.

7


Word Count: 2058

8


References:

Alagumalai, S., Burley, S., & Keeves, J. (2013). Effects of socioeconomic status, class size

and ability grouping on science achievement. In Excellence in scholarship:

Transcending Transdisciplinarity in Teacher Education (pp. 19-42). Rotterdam, NL:

Sense Publishers

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). 2011 Census QuickStats. Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). My School. Retrieved

from http://www.myschool.edu.au

Bagnall, N. (2010). Globalisation. In Connell R, Campbell C, Vickers M, Welch A, Foley D,

Bagnall N, Hayes D (Eds.), Education, Change and Society (2nd ed., pp. 357-380).

South Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia.

Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of

Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247-259.

Dei, G., & Karumanchery, L. (1999). School reforms in Ontario: the marketization of

education and the resulting silence on equity. The Alberta Journal of Educational

Research, 45(2), 111-131.

Government of Victoria. (2006). Education and Training Reform Act (Victoria, Australia).

Retrieved from

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/web_notes/ldms/pubstatbook.nsf/

9


f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/

575C47EA02890DA4CA25717000217213/$FILE/06-024a.pdf

Mills, C. (2009). Making sense of pre-service teachers’ dispositions towards social justice:

can teacher education make a difference? Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 277-

288. DOI: 10.1080/17508480903156862

Morsy, L., Gulson, K., & Clarke, M. (2014). Democracy, ‘sector-blindness’ and the

delegitimation of dissent in neoliberal education policy: a response to Discourse

34(2), May 2013. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(3), 444-

461.

O'Flynn, G., & Petersen, E. (2007). The 'good life' and the 'rich portfolio': young women,

schooling and neoliberal subjectification. British Journal of Sociology of Education,

28(4), 459-472.

Thomson, P. (2003). Schooling the Rustbelt Kids: Making the Difference in Changing Times.

Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Windle, J. (2009). The limits of school choice: some implications for accountability of

selective practices and positional competition in Australian education. Critical Studies

in Education, 50(3), 231-246.

10

Putting a Price on Education - The Cost of Marketisation in Australian Schooling

Documents

Transcript of Putting a Price on Education - The Cost of Marketisation in Australian Schooling