The Gonski Review discussion paper ‘Emerging Issues’ reflects:
Concerns were heard about a widening gap in the social composition of non-government and government schools leading to a perceived ‘residualisation’ of government schools in some areas
It has been suggested by some education sector stakeholders that the funding of non-government schools at a fundamental level not only causes academic or behavioural ‘residualisation’ but segregation that puts at risk the social fabric of Australia’s multicultural society.
For example one commentator described the policy of funding non-government school education in the following terms:
…this policy contributes to increasingly segregated schools as a result of the residualisation of public schools caused by shifts in enrolment patterns. At the other end of the spectrum there is further separatism resulting from state-sponsored segregation in the form of private schools, including ethno-religious schools.
The IEUA rejects the proposition that non-government schools are not in some way at least as representative as government schools, or that multiculturalism does not ‘come alive’ in non-government schools, or that non-government schools are cultural or racial enclaves.
Research undertaken by Edmund Rice Australia found that non-government schools unequivocally contribute to building bonding, bridging and linking social capital. To read the findings of this report click here.
To read more about the diversity in the non-governnment school sector, click here.
There is no question that building social capital is a challenge to all school systems, government and non-government and indeedconsideration needs to be given to other settings and their impact on social capital and potential residualisation.
State government policy settings
State governments are increasingly operating ‘selective’ schools. These schools chose the most academically capable students.
In NSW alone there are over 70 Primary schools offering placement in Year 5 Opportunity classes and over 40 Selective High Schools.
It is clear that these schools have an impact on student outcomes and relative school assessments. Ofr instance, major metropolitan dailies reported on the 2010 Year 12 results in the following manner – click here
It will be important in the debate on school funding that some consideration is given to these schools and the question as to whether there is evidence of the impact of government policy and settings in the government school sector that have a significantly greater impact on student location (relocation? drift?) than the existence or funding of the non-government school sector.
Interestingly, one passionate advocate of government schooling pointed out in 2010 following the launch of the MySchool website that these Government Selective Schools are dominated by the ‘rich’. Read Maralyn Parker’s blog here.
One of the critical issues not being addressed or even acknowledged by some is the demise of the comprehensive government school not necessarily as an outcome of slight increases in non-government school enrolments, but government policy settings..
The socially representative government school
“let us remember that multiculturalism comes alive in the classrooms and the playgrounds of the local socially representative government school….. where students come to learn together and learn to live
together ‘side by side’.” [AEU Federal President January 2010]
Such a statement is hard to reconcile with the actual demographic, social, cultural and economic profile of Australian suburbs and towns. The fact is that Australian suburbs and towns are not homogeneous.
The IEUA rejects the implied proposition that non-government schools are not socially representative and that by ‘definition’ mulitculturalism does not come alive in such schools.
The linked item on ‘local socially representative’ here shows that in many suburbs and towns across Australia, the social mix in the ‘local’ government and non-government school are almost indistinguishable.