Cash is no answer to failing schools

Conventional wisdom holds that student disadvantage is attributed to too little public spending – with Canberra’s entire political spectrum keen to throw more of our dollars at it – or too much parental school choice. But evidence proves neither argument is grounded in reality.

CIS recently used NAPLAN data and the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage to identify the Australian schools that are both disadvantaged and high-achieving across the three-year period from 2015 to 2017.

The success stories of the disadvantaged schools show that, given the right set of politics and policies, students from low socio-economic backgrounds can be high achievers and consistently perform above the national average for literacy and numeracy. And these schools don’t have more money than other similarly disadvantaged schools.

The lesson: helping disadvantaged students succeed is not just a question of how much money is spent, but also how it is spent.

Yet both Labor and the Coalition subscribe to the view that more taxpayer funding on schools will improve results.

In Australia, recurrent government spending per student increased by 14 per cent in real terms between 2007-08 and 2016-17, including an 11 per cent increase in government schools. The proportion of total government funding for schools allocated on the basis of disadvantage increased from about 11 per cent in 2009 to 25 per cent in 2019.

And we spend more money per student in primary and secondary school than the OECD average and some high-achieving nations – such as Japan and Finland – after purchasing power parity is taken into account.

Nevertheless, in recent years Australia’s school results have either declined or stagnated on international standardised tests, and there is no evidence of improvement in education equity. So more money by itself isn’t the solution to helping disadvantaged students.

Our research also found it is more challenging for secondary schools to help disadvantaged students succeed, compared to primary schools. Only three Australian secondary schools are both disadvantaged and high-achieving. In contrast, 21 Australian primary schools are both disadvantaged and high-achieving.

Why do fewer disadvantaged secondary schools overcome the odds and become high-achievers?

A common response is to blame non-government and selective government schools for taking many of the best students. A much higher proportion of Australian students attend non-government secondary schools (41 per cent) than non-government primary schools (30 per cent), and all selective schools are secondary.

Should we aim to reduce parental school choice, so more high-achievers stay at their local government secondary school and might positively influence their peers?

The reality is this simply wouldn’t work. Even if all selective and non-government schools shut down, this would just mean more high-income families would move to areas with the best-performing government schools. There would be probable side-effects of raising local house prices and increasing demand for private tutoring. As a result, social stratification between schools wouldn’t change substantially.

To keep things in perspective, Australia does not have an especially inequitable school system. Educational inequity in Australia is about the same as the OECD international average, or slightly lower. And yet Australia has a much higher proportion of students attending non-government schools (34 per cent) than the OECD average (16 per cent).

Progressive pundits blame “elite” non-government schools or fantasy funding “cuts” for educational disadvantage. But the reality is far more complex.

Start with the “Matthew Effect” in education. This is the tendency for differences in student achievement in early primary school to grow into larger differences towards the end of secondary school, unless rectified. That means effective early literacy and numeracy teaching is vital to ensure disadvantaged students don’t fall behind. It should be a priority for secondary schools to identify underachieving students when they enrol.

For parents, choice of primary school is arguably more important than choice of secondary school for their child’s academic success. Many parents send their child to the local primary school but then invest significantly more time and money in choosing a secondary school. Ultimately, however, student achievement in secondary school depends largely on having mastered literacy and numeracy skills in the early years.

There are evidence-based policies for improving outcomes for disadvantaged students in high school. For example, OECD data shows school discipline problems are especially prevalent among disadvantaged secondary schools in Australia. So a policy focus on building positive school cultures with high expectations could significantly improve academic outcomes for disadvantaged students.

No nation has succeeded in eliminating education inequity. But the CIS study is more evidence that there is a better way forward than just spending more tax dollars on education. We can improve outcomes for our most disadvantaged children if evidence-based school practices are adopted.

Tom Switzer is executive director and Blaise Joseph is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.