Draft – For comment not quotation
Education segregation in Australia: The history, patterns and potential effects for Indigenous Australians. Nicholas Biddle and Stephen Heyes
Abstract
The concentration of Indigenous Australians in schools with relatively few resources,
high-achieving peers or role models has the potential to impact on the ability of the
government to reduce educational disadvantage. The aim of this paper is to document
the history and patterns of school sorting of Indigenous Australians. Results presented
show that, while reasonably high, school sorting of Indigenous Australians is lower
than for many minority groups in a number of other countries, and lower than
residential sorting by neighbourhood. However, those areas with the greatest degree
of sorting tend to be those with the most disadvantaged Indigenous population.
1
Draft – For comment not quotation
1
Introduction and overview
In early 2010, the Federal Australian Government, through the Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), introduced the My School website.1
One of the side effects of the introduction of the My School website has been a greater
attention in the media and a wider public discussion towards the role the school
system can have in reducing or exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities. In essence,
the website prompts the question of whether the structure of the school system as it
stands is leading to a more equal or a more unequal society compared to other
potential systems.
One aspect of the Australian school system that may influence socioeconomic
inequalities is the sorting of students into particular schools either by school sector or
by geography. In Australia, there are four main types of schools in two broad
categories. Government schools, of which there are two types, do not charge
compulsory fees for admission. Comprehensive schools allow admission based on
geographic criteria only, whereas selective schools admit students based on academic
or other criteria. The other broad category is private or non-government schools.
These schools still receive some government funding and must meet certain
curriculum requirements. However, a proportion of their revenue comes from
compulsory student fees. Non-government schools can be further classified into
catholic schools and other non-government schools, with the latter most likely to
include students from a relatively advantaged socioeconomic background.
School sorting or segregation has attracted a great deal of academic interest in the US
(Reardon et al. 2000; Clotfelter 2004; Bifulco & Ladd 2007). This is partly because of
variation in school funding by geography (Zhou 2009), but also because of the history
of government-imposed racial segregation in a number of school systems. While these
two factors are less of an issue in the Australian context, another motivation for
studying school segregation – peer effects – does have relevance.
Peer effects in the context of schooling generally refer to the externalities that arise
from the academic or other outcomes of a particular student’s classmates or social
group. A segregated school system is likely to lead to minority or disadvantaged
students not being exposed to high-achieving peers.
In 2008, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG – representing Federal, State
and Local Governments) committed itself to six targets related to ‘Closing the Gap’ in
Indigenous disadvantage (FAHCSIA 2009). While the headline target was to
eliminate the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians, there were also three targets related to education access and achievement.
The aim of this paper is to document the level of school sorting of Indigenous
Australians, decompose it by school sector and geography and consider some of the
factors that are associated with this geographic variation, and how current policy
directions may influence school sorting. Before presenting results, the next section
outlines this history of Indigenous education in Australian, relevant international
examples and the potential impacts of school sorting through peer effects. This is
followed by an overview of the data and methods used in the study.
2
Draft – For comment not quotation
2
The history of school segregation of Indigenous Australians, international
comparisons and current policy debates
2.1
The history of school segregation in Australia
The history of school sorting within Australia is important to contextualise the current
segregated nature of schooling for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, and the
current educational attainment gap, the focus of many current policies. Prior to the
colonisation of Australia by Great Britain, Indigenous education was typified as
deliberate, systematic, comprehensive, and lengthy. It was not set out in books, but
rather was the living culture, it belonged in the family where everyone was an
educator (Burridge and Chodkiewicz, 2012).
This changed with British settlement, with the colonisation of the country having
significant negative impacts on the Indigenous way of life. Education centred on
improving the Indigenous population, typified by missionary schools, segregated
public schooling, and training institutions which focused on manual work.
Under the Australian federal system education has primarily been the responsibility of
the states, thus leaving a varied history of Indigenous education policy throughout
Australia. However it is still evident that Indigenous education policy has followed
many distinct phases. Partington (1998) describes three distinct phases of Indigenous
education policy from colonisation until the 1960s. Firstly, the Mission period, that
had an emphasis on saving and civilising the Indigenous population. Secondly, the
Protection era, marked by restrictive and racist measures and finally the Assimilation
period marked by attempts to assimilate Indigenous children with some European
ancestry. Each of these eras are documented below.
Mission era
Schooling across Australia during most of the 1800s was not generally seen as the
responsibility of government. Schools were generally established by churches or
charities and, as such, there were very government policies explicitly focused on
Indigenous education. Missions were established with the goal of civilising the
Indigenous population and removing them from their cultural underpinnings which
were seen as primitive at best (Cole, 2011). Partly due to the rapid demographic
decline during this period, there was the strong belief that the Indigenous population
was a dying race and there was a need to Christianise them before they died out.
Many missions that opened in this era subsequently closed citing the inability to
civilise the Indigenous population. This lead to a South Australian select committee in
the 1860s stating that education efforts should be based on the principle of separating
Indigenous children from their parents (Parbury, 1999)
The era came to an end as government took responsibility with the introduction of
Protectorate Acts within the Australian states. This began in Victoria in 1869, with all
other colonies following suit in the coming decades. Colonial and then State
Governments then had significant control over almost all aspects of Indigenous life
including marriage, child-rearing, residence, employment and education.
Protectorate era
NSW provides a good example of the policy debates of the era with conflict between
Protection Boards and Education Departments. The Protection Board wanted to
3
Draft – For comment not quotation
completely segregate the Indigenous population barring them from admittance from
public schools, whereas the Education Department allowed admittance to Indigenous
students if they were deemed ‘clean, clad and courteous’ (Fletcher, 1989). This saw in
the late 1800s Indigenous students admitted into government funded schools, thereby
resulting in health, hygiene and behaviour becoming the markers for segregation
within education. This policy created strong opposition from non-Indigenous parents,
who held the belief that their child’s education was being compromised by the
presence of Indigenous students.
In 1884 with the introduction of a new Minister for education in NSW segregation
between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students was encouraged with segregated
schools established in localities with a sufficient number of Aboriginal children. This
resulted in the establishment of the first segregated schools in NSW in 1887, a move
that was echoed in the other colonies. It should be noted, however, that those in areas
where segregated schools were not established still attended public schools.
The continued admittance of Aboriginal children into public schools resulted in
growing protests from non-Indigenous parents, threatening to withdraw their children
with the continued admittance of Indigenous children. However the Education
Department could not withdraw the children if no segregated school was within the
region and they passed the ‘clean, clad and courteous’ policy. However the continued
pressure of parents resulted in a change of government policy to ‘exclusion on
demand’ introduced in 1902, with Indigenous children excluded from schools if
parents of non-Indigenous children demanded it, again a policy that became
widespread throughout Australia. This policy continued for over half a century that
saw the establishment of over 50 Indigenous schools within NSW, fully segregating
the population in terms of education (Fletcher,1989; Parbury, 1999).
One important aspect of these schools was the different curriculum and administrative
procedures. In some cases the schools were so small that the government did not
provide a building. Furthermore teachers at Indigenous schools did not have to hold
teaching qualifications. A special syllabus was introduced in 1916 for Indigenous
education. It prescribed a meagre amount of time to numeracy and literacy, with a
heavy focus on manual work for boys and domestic arts for girls (Fletcher, 1989)
Whilst there was a large degree of uniformity in policies during this period,
differences could be found in Western Australia and the more remote regions of the
country. Many remote areas did not cater for the Indigenous population’s education
with there often being no school and Aboriginal children barred from public schools
(Parbury, 1999).
Education policy during the period reflected the beliefs of the time with a heavy
influence of what would eventually be known as Social Darwinism. Influential
anthropologist at the time A.P. Elkin wrote in the 1930s that:
The present policy is to educate aborigines (mostly mixed-bloods) up to what
might be called a ‘useful labourer’s standard’, for to do more, if it were
possible, would not help them . . . aborigines (full and mixed blood) should
not, and cannot, be assimilated by the white community. They must live apart .
. . They cannot become equals of the white race. (Beresford and Gray, 2008)
4
Draft – For comment not quotation
Assimilation period
This shift in education policy and practice was discussed for many years prior.
Concerns regarding the steady rise of what were then labelled the ‘half and part caste’
population saw the development of policies aiming to merge them with the nonIndigenous population. This was the basis of the ‘Stolen Generation’, where
Indigenous children were taken away from their families and communities by the state
to remove them from Indigenous influence and assimilate them into non-Indigenous
society (Australian Human Rights Commission, 1997). This idea to assimilate
Indigenous children with some European or other ancestry became evident in
education policy during the 1937 Commonwealth-State Native Welfare Conference,
the first of its kind. The conference reported that it:
believes that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full
blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth,
and it therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end
(Commonwealth of Australia, 1937)
With regard to the education of Indigenous children the conference stated that:
... efforts of all State authorities should be directed towards the education of
children of mixed aboriginal blood at white standards, and their subsequent
employment under the same conditions as whites with a view to their taking
their place in the white community on an equal footing with the whites
(Commonwealth of Australia, 1937)
Between the years of 1940-1968 there was a decline in the Aboriginal schooling
system with the closure of many of the smaller indigenous schools, and half and part
caste children admitted into public schools (Fletcher, 1989)
The move towards assimilation still maintained many of the beliefs of the Protectorate
Era with the view that Indigenous children were not fit to receive a full and proper
education. This saw the policy of the NSW and Queensland governments only
allowing tuition of Aboriginals up to Year 3 standard, even as they aged well beyond
that level their teaching did not progress any further (Purdie and McCrindle, 2004).
Again it must be noted that conditions were very different in more remote areas where
the education of Indigenous children was generally provided by missions or not at all.
Yet despite there being a level of provision in urban areas the rate of Indigenous
education was very low. In the 1940s it was estimated that fewer than 10 per cent
were attending public schools, with nearly two-thirds of children receiving no
education whatsoever (Beresford and Gray, 2008)
Integration
The 1960s marked a significant change for the Indigenous population, with a range of
Indigenous (and non-Indigenous) leaders advocating for land-rights, political rights
and citizenship/civil-rights. One of the significant outcomes of this was the successful
1967 referendum allowing the Commonwealth Government to develop and
implement policy for Indigenous Australians. It also led to the Indigenous population
being officially included in census counts of the total Australian population. The
period also saw education policy move away from assimilation to integration, where
5
Draft – For comment not quotation
the Indigenous population was able to enter into wider society slightly more on their
terms.
There was also a shift away from the belief that Aboriginals were incapable of
matching non-Indigenous students due to inherent or innate abilities. Rather, poor
Indigenous education results were believed to stem instead from improvised
backgrounds and communities where education was not as valued as it was in the
white community (Parbury, 1999). However, this ignored any problems that the
schooling system may have had with dealing with the needs of Indigenous students
(Vass, 2013).
Despite the positive movements in Indigenous education, studies during the 1970s
demonstrated a significant gap in the educational outcomes between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous students, with lingering views that Indigenous students were of less
ability than non-Indigenous students. Highlighting this was the disproportionate levels
of Indigenous students in ‘low ability’ classes in NSW, which were termed ‘other
activity’ classes. In certain schools, however, they became known as ‘only
Aboriginal’ classes (Parbury, 1999).
Despite these problems there was a move towards self-determination in the 70s and
80s with Aboriginal advisory groups being placed within state education departments
around Australia. This saw the development, in 1982, of a policy that included the
study of Indigenous culture and history within the NSW state curriculum (Parbury,
1999).
A further development was the federal initiative to create the National Aboriginal
Education Committee in 1977, giving the Indigenous population a voice in policy and
curriculum debates (Vass, 2013). Its outline of a national approach to education in
1985 represents the dominant themes in Indigenous education both presently and the
last few decades. The NAEC outlined that:
By any acceptable educational standard in Australia today the education of
Aboriginal people is seriously inadequate. A major reason for this inadequacy
is that the educational theories and process used in Australia have been
developed by and for non- Aboriginal people. They are largely inappropriate
for our people. School and further education authorities must develop an
education theory and pedagogy that takes into account Aboriginal
epistemology. (National Aboriginal Education Committee, as cited in Vass,
2013)
The significance of the NAEC statement was not lost on politicians at the time and in
1989 the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Education Policy was
released, incorporating many of the NAEC suggestions. Attesting to the impact of this
policy, it continues to be the centrepiece of the national approach to ‘Indigenous
education’, with the central ideas outlined in 1989 such as the importance of culturally
appropriate pedagogy; inclusive curriculum; attendance and retention; and calls for
increased parental engagement and numbers of Indigenous teachers continuing to
resonate today, as such the policy framework for Indigenous education has been
relatively stable since the mid-1970s (Vass, 2013).
6
Draft – For comment not quotation
Contemporary era
These ideals outlined in by the NAEC have been central to education policy in the
contemporary era as they form key platforms used to move towards statistical equality
between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. The major development in the
drive for statistical inequality was The 2008 National Indigenous Reform Agreement
(Closing the Gap). This policy agreed upon by the Federal and State governments
aims to ‘Close the Gap’ in Indigenous disadvantage over set periods of time across
areas of health, education, employment.1 This policy takes a heavily statistical focus,
which leads to questions of the value of cultural diversity, as the non-Indigenous
statistics are set as the norm and aspirational targets for Indigenous Australians
(Altman, 2009).
Boarding schools that cater for Indigenous students has been a strong policy direction
in recent years. The former Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin, has
advocated strongly for boarding schools stating that many Indigenous peoples want
them, particularly in remote areas where schools are not available. Yet boarding
schools can be expensive and they are generally church administered, forcing children
to participate in Christianity. In addition, they often only cater to the elites of
indigenous communities (Smith, 2009).
This support for boarding schools has continued with the election of a new Coalition
Government in 2013. The newly appointed Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel
Scullion clearly sees boarding schools as a way to boost school attendance. Scullion
stated the “there are clear benefits for children attending senior schooling away from
their home” (Martin, 2014). There are several policies in place to support Indigenous
attendance at boarding schools with the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme,
assisting with the extra costs of educating children in remote areas, and the Relocation
Scholarship, providing funding for students who have moved away from home to
study (Commonwealth Government, n.d.)
Whilst policy towards Indigenous education has changed dramatically since the 1960s
and 70s, such a history of discrimination cannot be ignored when discussing
contemporary Indigenous education. For much of Australia’s history, schools for
Indigenous children have acted as tools for assimilation and the stripping away of
Aboriginal culture. They were places where children were taken from their families
and placed in, with the aim of removing Indigenous influences. They have been
places of overt racism, where Indigenous students were seen as inferior and unable to
match other students because of their ancestry. Such factors must be considered when
investigating the current relationship of Indigenous people and schooling.
2.2
International comparisons
Education segregation by race or ethnicity is clearly not a problem isolated to
Australia with countries such as the United States, Canada and New Zealand all
experiencing achievement gaps in education systems where minorities find
themselves segregated. They share a history of being classed in schools that did not
provide adequate education, were in a racist system and were subject to abuse.
Despite the removal of de jure segregation, de facto segregation still remains in these
1
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2012) Closing the
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/indigenous-australians/programs-services/closing-thegap/closing-the-gap-targets-and-building-blocks
7
Draft – For comment not quotation
nations and as such there is much to be learnt for Australia from these cases and how
educational segregation comes about, its impact and the policy implications of it.
United States
Many similarities between the education experiences of the Indigenous population of
Australia and the United States can be found. Schooling for American Indian children
was generally conducted by missionary schools, where children were taken from their
homes and placed in these boarding schools. While the aims of taking the children out
of their communities was to assimilate the children into European society, the
education provided and the curriculum clearly focussed on manual labour and farming
for boys and domestic work for girls (Smith, 2009). Schools were managed at
minimal costs and with severe treatment of the students. Inadequate food, medical
care and overcrowding were common in these schools. Children were also required to
perform manual labour and operate machinery without the necessary safety
precautions, problems contributing to high mortality rates in these schools. Sexual and
physical abuses were also well noted experiences in these schools (Smith, 2009)
Further to the education gap between American Indians and the general population,
there is also a significant gap in the outcomes of African American student and the
general population. The segregation of African Americans is well known, with the
influential Brown versus the Education Board of Topeka ruling in 1954 that
segregation in schools was unconstitutional ushering in the end to formalised
segregated education. Prior to this schools were segregated along racial lines, with
many States legislating segregation during the mid to late 1800s, particularly in the
South. This resulted in a significant gap in public expenditures on the two separate
education systems with at least twice as much spent on white students, leaving black
schools run down, overcrowded and ill equipped. Although many northern states in
contrast to the south prohibited school segregation, it was not reflected in the schools,
with school segregation often maintained in spite of state law, with it often
unenforceable due to pressure from white parents and school boards. Furthermore
district lines were gerrymandered working to create a dual system of schooling, and
often separate building in schools set up for black children (Salvatore, et al, 2000).
This is the system that remained in place until the Brown decision that started the
slow movement towards desegregation.
Since the Brown decision there have been efforts to desegregate schooling. These
moves initially have enjoyed success. However, since the 1990s segregation levels
have increased as schools have been granted greater autonomy and are no longer
compelled to commit to desegregation policies (Orfield, 2001). The effects of these
desegregation efforts have been the subject of significant research. Guryan (2004)
suggests through data from 1970 and 1980 censuses that desegregation helped to
reduce high school dropout rates of African Americans by 2-3 percent. Further
research also indicates positive effects on African American students from
desegregation with a closing of the educational gap (Echenique, et al, 2006). These
desegregation policies have been ruled through the judicial branch of government in
the US that have forced local school districts to implement desegregation policies.
These policies have mainly consisted of busing, the practice of assigning and
transporting students to specific school in order to readdress the imbalance caused by
segregation. Evidence shows that these policies worked with a 1987 study indicating a
20 percent reduction in the dissimilarity index in school districts (Guryan, 2004).
8
Draft – For comment not quotation
Despite this, de facto segregation is still evident with African Americans highly
concentrated in poor achieving schools in disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Ong and
Rickles, 2004). Widespread studies show the discrepancy between the levels of
achievement between African-Americans and white students with significant gaps at
every age after taking away factors such as socio-economic status and family
background still significant (Fryer, 2010).
The desegregation of Native American schools ran parallel to that of African
American schools. With changes enhancing American Indian participation in schools
and promoting Indigenous culture into the curriculum. Yet today there is still the
existence of segregation and an educational achievement gap (Smith, 2009)
One recent development relating to school segregation in the United States has been
the rise of charter schools. Charter schools are voluntary enrolment schools that
receive partial funding from government, but are run independently of government.
Charter schools are on the rise with enrolment tripling from 2000-2010 (Frankenburg,
et al, 2010). Presently they enjoy strong support from the Obama administration with
the 2010 budget increasing funding for this sector by 20 percent (Frankenburg, et al,
2010).
The argument for charter schools stems from the basis of competition, as charter
schools widen the choice for parents and students, schools will become accountable to
choice and therefore deliver a better product to ensure continued enrolment.
Proponents of these schools further argue that whilst choice has always been available
for wealthier families through private education, charter schools provides all with
choice and can therefore combat inequality through the extension of competition
(Renzulli and Roscigno, 2007). Yet there is strong evidence to suggest that this new
booming area of schooling is a contributing factor in the rise of school segregation in
the United States.
The concept of white flight emerged with the attempts to desegregate the American
school system, with white parents seeking alternative schools for their children. It is
argued by Rezullli and Roscigno (2007) that charter schools provide the opportunity
of white flight without having to afford private schools or having to move vast
distances. Furthermore there is evidence of minority flight in charter schools with
many having very high percentages of black students. Miron’s (2010) research into
charter schools finds that they tend to be strongly racially segregative compared to
public schools in similar areas, with only a quarter of charter schools having a similar
composition of students as the sending district. Miron contends that the research
provides strong evidence of white flight and minority flight working to compound
residential segregation. This research is support by Frankenburg (2010), whose
analysis of charter schools finds that charter schools are more racially isolated than
traditional public schools in almost all states and large metropolitan areas. Charter
schools are designed to provide families with more choice in their schooling with the
assumption that market principles will raise education standards. Yet this evidence
suggests that the greater choice and school autonomy has led to the establishment of
schools that are more racially segregated than traditional public schools.
Canada
9
Draft – For comment not quotation
Canada’s education policies towards the First Nations and Metis populations mirror
those of the United States. Native children were removed from their homes and placed
boarding schools under the mantra ‘save the man, kill the Indian’, thereby saving the
man through ridding him of his Indian heritage. Again, these schools focussed on
manual training and farming for boys and domestic work for girls. Incidences of
physical and sexual abuse were also prevalent in these schools (Smith, 2009; Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1991). Figures from 1907 highlight the very poor
quality of the facilities provided with reports that medical inspections of the schools
found a 24 percent mortality rate amongst students, 42 percent of those dying after
being sent home from illness (Smith, 2009).
This system lasted until the 1950s when, much like in Australia, the concept of
assimilation began to dominate with Indigenous student placed in public schools.
Whilst some residential schools remained open, by the 1970s approximately 60
percent of Indian students were in public schools. With increasing protests and
pressure from Indigenous groups regarding the quality of Indigenous education this
policy only lasted until the 1970s when the mantra of self-determination became
prominent with greater Indian control and input into education (Kirkness, 1999).
Despite these changes and formal apologies and reparations, Indigenous education
today in Canada is marked by a significant educational achievement gap between the
Indigenous and non-Indigenous population (Smith, 2009; Richards, 2008)
New Zealand
The segregation of New Zealand’s education system shares the hallmark of other
British colonised nations of it being used as a tool for the assimilation of the
Indigenous population. Initially schools were set up for the Māori population by
Churches, subsidised by the government (Smith, 2009). Yet as the colonisation of
New Zealand continued and with it the demand for Māori land, there grew a strong
determination within the Indigenous population to resist loss of land and attempts to
assimilate (Stephenson, 2006). This lead to the abandonment of the missionary
schools and the creation of a dual education system with the Native Schools Act 1867.
Although it did not specifically outline segregation between Māoris and non-Māoris,
with both systems not officially excluding the other. The Act also saw the minor
involvement of the Indigenous population with the schools, with committees
established to oversee the school operations and its budget (Stephenson, 2006).
Although in the case of New Zealand the treatment of the Indigenous population was
far less extreme than in Australia, Canada and the United States, the system still held
strong racist undertones regarding the potential of Māori students. Although there was
a greater academic focus than in the other nations referred to manual labour and
domestic work still played a role in the curriculum (Stephenson, 2006).
During the 1950s and 60s there was a movement towards a singular education system
a civil rights movements worldwide grew in prominence. The landmark Brown vs the
Board of Education ruling against segregation helped to provide the impetus towards
a uniform education system in New Zealand. By 1969 all Māori schools had been
transferred over to the public schools system to be managed by the Education
Department (Smith, 2009). Unlike in the United States, Canada and Australia, this
move was not brought about from pressure from the local Indigenous population with
10
Draft – For comment not quotation
many Māoris seeing their separate schooling system as an area of self-determination
and as part of the community, and that moves to a uniform system would therefore
undermine Māori interests (Stephenson, 2006).
Despite the movements towards a single education system, segregation between
Māoris and non-Māoris is still evident with Thrupp (2007) highlighting the high
concentration of Māori students in the least equipped schools. Similar to Australia
there is also a significant gap in the education achievement of Māori and non-Māori
students. Studies from Bishop et al (2009) show that statistics from 2007 show that
Māori students have a three times higher rate of suspension, are over represented in
special education programs, have lower rates of preschool attendance, leave school
earlier and have low levels of enrolment in tertiary education. The case of New
Zealand also demonstrates the influence of public policy and residential segregation
has on segregated education.
New Zealand’s policies towards school sorting can be characterised by three stages:
the post-war stage where school selection was based on zoning; the 1990s that saw
quasi markets introduced into education; and the 2000s were there was a move back
towards school admissions through residential zoning (Thrupp, 2007). The periods
where zones formed the basis for school admissions both preceding and succeeding
the neo-liberal approach of the 90s saw the effects of residential segregation impact
on school sorting seeing elite schools in wealthy suburbs, with those from lower
socio-economic backgrounds segregated from them. The move to neo-liberal policies
of the 1990s were based on the assumption that by removing zoning as the basis for
admittance, competition would be boosted between schools to seem more attractive
for students would result in better performances from schools and teachers.
Numerous studies have taken place to ascertain the impact the policies of the 1990s.
They show that schools from the lower socioeconomic decile reduced in size, whereas
those of a higher decile grew in size. Fiske and Ladd (2000) show that this movement
resulted in the concentration of Māori and Pasifika2 students increasing during the
1990s. Lauder’s (1999) analysis of the policy changes argues that non-Indigenous
students from higher socio-economic backgrounds were more likely to bypass their
local schools in favour of stronger schools outside of their locality. These studies
suggest that the quasi market introduced in the 1990s worked to increase the
stratification between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.
These findings however are disputed by Nash and Harker (2005), who argue that
Indigenous students were active in leaving poorer schools for more wealthy schools,
thus the new market in education did not discriminate as movement was evident from
Indigenous students and those from working class backgrounds.
The way in which school admissions policy reverted back to zoning in 2000 also
exacerbated the segregated nature of education. Schools have a large say in
determining their zone and often gerrymander the boundaries to exclude low income
areas, where there is a higher proportion of Māoris (Thrupp, 2007).
2
Term used in New Zealand to refer to New Zealanders originating from Pacific Island nations.
11
Draft – For comment not quotation
These circumstances highlight the difficulty in developing policies that not only stop
the increasingly segregated nature of the education system, but to also readdress the
present imbalance. Thrupp (2007) argues that the urban middle class have been
adaptable to changing policies in seeking to educate their children in more socially
advantaged schools, suggesting that the situation may have as much to do with
parental wishes as government policy.
2.3
Lessons for Australia and current policy debates
The educational experiences of Indigenous peoples in Australia, The United States,
Canada and New Zealand highlight the ongoing effect of colonial legacies. The
education systems drawn up were based on assumptions about the inferiority of
Indigenous peoples and resulted in substandard education, mental, physical and sexual
abuse and the attempts to destroy cultural legacies. These histories cannot be ignored
when contemplating the current educational disadvantage facing Indigenous students.
These country’s experiences and how they have sought to deal with their history of
segregation provides many lessons to Australia. Canada’s move to provide reparations
and their strong efforts to address the past abuses provides a strong example of
policies to address their history. The example of charter schools in the United States
highlights that potential of choice and school autonomy in education systems resulting
in segregated schooling, and the example of New Zealand highlights the difficulties of
government’s role in school sorting and its relationship to residential segregation.
3
Patterns of school sorting in Australia
According to the 2006 Census, 65.3 per cent of Australian school students were
attending public schools in that year. The schools that these students attend are funded
on a per-student basis at a centralised state level, with various adjustments made for
economies of scale and other factors that are likely to affect fixed and marginal costs
(Dowling 2007). However, the 34.7 per cent of students who are attending private
schools are likely to come disproportionately (though not exclusively) from relatively
advantaged backgrounds (Le & Miller 2003).
The proportion of students attending non-government schools has increased quite
substantially in the last 30–40 years. This has been caused in part by Federal
Government funding to non-government schools that began in the early 1950s and has
increased reasonably steadily (even on a per-capita basis) since. Ryan and Watson
(2004) show that the increase in funding has not led to a fall in school fees charged by
non-government schools, but rather an increase in the amount of resources devoted to
each student. This in turn has led to the maintenance of students with relatively high
socioeconomic status attending non-government schools.
Alongside the increase in the proportion of students attending non-government
schools, there is also a significant and growing number of schools with admission
fully or partially based on academic criteria. Most of these schools are in New South
Wales where, according to the relevant government department, in 2010 there were
‘17 fully selective high schools, 23 high schools with selective classes (partially
selective), a virtual selective class provision (Western NSW Region) and 4
agricultural high schools offering selective placement in Year 7’ (NSW DET 2010).
12
Draft – For comment not quotation
Because they are funded directly by the government, the resources devoted to the
education of a student in a selective school is similar to that which is devoted to a
student in a comprehensive public school. Where selective schools share similarities
with non-government schools is in their potential to lead to the grouping of students
into schools based on certain background characteristics. In non-government schools
(especially those with high student fees), this grouping is likely to be based on
family/household income. Government selective schools, on the other hand, are likely
to group students based on measured academic ability. However, given the
relationship between family/household income and early childhood education
development, as well as the resources devoted to preparation for the selective school
examination by a number of parents,2 sorting by family income is also likely to occur
between comprehensive and selective government schools.
Indigenous students are substantially less likely to attend non-government schools
than their non-Indigenous counterparts. According to the 2006 Census, 14.0 per cent
of Indigenous infants/primary students were attending a non-government school
alongside 19.4 per cent of Indigenous secondary students. This is substantially lower
than the 31.6 per cent and 40.8 per cent of the comparative non-Indigenous
population. Across all non-government school students, a slightly higher percentage
of Indigenous compared to non-Indigenous students were attending catholic schools
as opposed to other non-government schools relative to the non-Indigenous
population (64.3 per cent compared to 59.7 per cent).
There is less information available on the proportion of Indigenous students attending
selective schools. This information is not collected on the census or any other
statistical collection with a large Indigenous sample. Nor is it made publically
available in standard government publications of administrative data sources. It is
instructive to note though that, according to the My School website, of the 10 selective
schools in New South Wales with the highest academic ranking of Year 9 students (all
of which were in Sydney), there was not a single school that reported an Indigenous
enrolment of greater than 0 per cent of total enrolments. There may be a small number
of Indigenous students in these schools with the percentages less that 0.5 per cent and
hence rounded to zero. Nonetheless, these schools demonstrating a high academic
achievement (with 9,468 students in total) are clearly not being accessed by the
Indigenous population.
The concentration of Indigenous students in particular schools has the potential to
impact on the ability of governments to meet their policy targets. Part of this school
sorting is likely to be related to residential sorting. Biddle has shown that Indigenous
Australians are more likely to live in remote parts of Australia than the nonIndigenous population and, within particular cities and large regional towns, more
likely to live in areas that are socioeconomically disadvantaged (2009a). Indigenous
students are also likely to grow up in households that lack the economic resources to
send them to high-fee non-government schools. Even after controlling for
socioeconomic status and geography, however, Biddle and Yap (2010) show that
Indigenous students were less likely to be attending non-government schools.
Furthermore, Indigenous children are more likely to grow up in houses that are
overcrowded and have few members that have completed secondary school, resulting
in a lower probability of gaining acceptance into a selective school.
13
Draft – For comment not quotation
For the Indigenous population, school-level sorting can have both positive and
negative effects. Firstly, a concentration of Indigenous students in particular schools
may mean a relatively low level of resources available to their education.3 Secondly,
it may also result in a lack of high achieving peers or role models. Finally, schools can
provide opportunities for children and youth to interact with students from different
backgrounds to themselves, increasing cross-cultural understanding (Robinson et al.
2001). Many non-Indigenous children and youth are likely to come across very few
Indigenous Australians because of where they live. One of the unintended
consequences of school choice may be an even lower level of interaction at school
than would otherwise be the case.
The net effects of school segregation are therefore difficult to predict a priori. They
are also very difficult to identify using standard empirical techniques. This is because
the type of school that Indigenous Australians attend is not exogenously determined.
Rather, the parents or guardians of Indigenous youth choose the area in which they
live and, conditional on their area, the specific school to attend. Furthermore, the
parents and guardians of non-Indigenous students also make choices regarding
geographical location and school. Ultimately, the choice of school that Indigenous
and non-Indigenous students attend is likely to be influenced by and also influence the
Indigenous composition of the school.
4
The potential effect of school segregation
4.1
Academic outcomes and peer effects
School sorting or segregation has attracted a great deal of academic interest in the US
(Reardon et al. 2000; Clotfelter 2004; Bifulco & Ladd 2007). This is partly because of
variation in school funding by geography (Zhou 2009), but also because of the history
of government-imposed racial segregation in a number of school systems. While these
two factors are less of an issue in the Australian context, another motivation for
studying school segregation – peer effects – does have relevance.
Peer effects in the context of schooling generally refer to the externalities that arise
from the academic or other outcomes of a particular student’s classmates or social
group. A segregated school system is likely to lead to minority or disadvantaged
students not being exposed to high-achieving peers. However, the existence of school
peer effects has been very difficult to prove conclusively. This is because of selection
issues, where high-achieving students self-select into high-achieving peer groups
either at the social group or school level.
Despite these difficulties there has been the development of many economic models
and formulas to assist in determining peer effects with Epple and Romano (2011),
whose literature review of peer effects highlights strong evidence that peer effects
operate both within and out of the classroom, holding both positive and negative
effects. Also significant is literature regarding race and peer effects, with studies
suggesting a strong Indigenous presence within schools can help to boost performance
of Indigenous students, typified by achievement gaps with non-Indigenous students.
14
Draft – For comment not quotation
Studies into the classroom achievement effects have consistent in finding increased
results stemming from strong peer abilities. There is however a wide range of
variability regarding the level of increase with some stating minimal increases are
present as opposed to others arguing strong increases in performance levels (Epple
and Romano, 2011).
Research also suggests negative peer effects occur with low achieving students,
disruptive students and those from dysfunctional home environments working to
lower the performance of regular students around them. These negative effects can
also extend outside of school with studies finding negative peer effects can result in
higher drug use and criminal activity (Epple and Romano, 2011).
Although the strength of peer effects is contentious as Benabou (1996) outlines even
minimal effects can have significant impacts. He argues that even small effects can
induce stratification as parents seek to move their children into schools that offer the
best chance of success. Furthermore it is these parents leaving the community are the
ones who provide strong value to the community meaning their exodus weakens the
community. This leaves peer effects having strong impacts outside of school as forms
of social capital leave the community and with it the provision of role models, job
contacts and community involvement (Benabou, 1996).
Whilst this literature provides a great insight into peer effects it does not look into
how effects relate to Indigenous students. The Australian Indigenous population is
hugely over represented in characteristics of dysfunctional home environments and
poor educational achievement suggesting that the higher the number of Indigenous
students the stronger the negative peer effects, leading to schools with strong
Indigenous populations having a negative effect on school results. However research
suggests the opposite with research from Australia and other nations that suggest
Indigenous students perform better in schools where they are overrepresented.
Qualitative evidence from Munns and McFadden (2000) suggest that a curriculum
and school culture that suits the needs and aspirations of Indigenous students can
promote higher levels of attendance and attainment. Such a curriculum and culture
can be better tailored when schools have a higher population of Indigenous students.
Similar results are found in Canada through a study by Friesen and Krauth (2009).
Through their analysis of longitudinal data on multiple cohorts of students they have
found that Aboriginal students that have a greater number of Aboriginal peers can
improve student achievement. This is an area that needs further research in Australia
to better determine whether or not Indigenous students benefit from a greater number
of Indigenous peers.
A further interesting facet of Australian Indigenous students and peer effects is the
results of Aboriginal students who are enrolled in high achieving schools. Results
from the 2009 Longitudinal Study of Australian Youth (LSAY) shows us that the
biggest achievement gap is experienced in non-government schools that are not
Catholic. With non-Indigenous students in these schools performing well above the
national average, based on the evidence of peer effects one would expect that the gap
between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students would be smaller than in other
schools. This counter intuitive result highlights the complex nature of peer effects
with Indigenous students and leaves the question as to why there is this difference.
15
Draft – For comment not quotation
One possible explanation comes from the work of Fordham and Ogbu (1986) who
takes into account historical, political and social realities in explaining differing levels
of success in education. Their study that concerns itself with the African American
population argues a sense of ambivalence and affective dissonance to educational
effort and success arising from a history of racism that cast aspersions on African
American’s intellectual capacity. As such academic success was seen as white
people’s prerogative and as such was discouraged as it was seen as ‘acting white’.
The histories of education for African Americans and Indigenous Australians as
outlined previously share similar histories and therefore the assumption of affective
dissonance being held within Indigenous students can be made.
There have been numerous studies that seek to quantify this assumption through the
measurement of Indigenous student’s attitudes towards schooling. If Fordham’s and
Ogbu’s contention was applicable to the Australian context one would expect to find
lower levels of satisfaction and aspirations with schooling in Indigenous students.
However significant studies by Godfrey et al (2001) suggest positive attitudes towards
schooling and their ambitions to complete schooling and study beyond school, with
both studies finding no discernable difference between Indigenous and nonIndigenous students, suggesting that the ‘acting white’ theory does not resonate in the
Australian context. This leaves it difficult to answer the apparent lack of peer effects
Indigenous children receive in other non-government schools, but it could relate to
why Indigenous students tend to perform better when they are grouped together with
more Indigenous students. Figures highlight the very low enrolment of Indigenous
students in other non-government schools, it is possible that having a other
Indigenous students around could act as a form of ethnic capital, creating a level of
comfort within the school environment. Studies relating to Indigenous students
perceptions of school across different school sectors would be beneficial in this
analysis, but it seems this is an area that needs new research.
4.2 Cultural maintenance
Cultural maintenance and identity are also important factors to be considered when
assessing peer effects. Although there is a lack of research on peer effects and culture
relating to Indigenous Australians, international studies suggest that peers from one’s
own ethnic group has a positive impact in a sense of identity and also academic
achievement.
Indigenous and ethnic minority students can often find that their schooling exposes
them to new dominant cultures adding a new influence on the formation of the
identity of these students. Research shows that the development of a strong ethnic
identity consistently has a positive impact of numerous psychological outcomes
including self-esteem, ego identity and school involvement (Phinney et al, 2001). This
relates strongly to school segregation with the exposure to peers of one’s own ethnic
group a strong factor in the development of ethnic identity. Phinney, et al, (2001)
highlights the benefits of peers from one’s own ethnic group through the study of
various minority groups in the United States concluding that exposure to ethnic
language and peers work as strong contributors to the development of ethnic identity.
Friesen and Krauth (2009) therefore argues that that classrooms with more Indigenous
children may experience less racism, enjoy more support for a positive cultural
identity, and have their parents more inclined to participate in the school. Demmert
and Towner’s (2003) extensive literature review of the benefits of culturally inclusive
16
Draft – For comment not quotation
curriculum for American Indian and Alaskan Native students finds strong links
between these curriculum and positive student outcomes and also improve parental
involvement in schools., further supporting the link between cultural identity and
school achievement, and that the presence of peers from one’s own ethnic group has
many positive outcomes. The inverse is also likely with students lacking peers from
one’s own ethnic group not enjoying gaining the benefits in the development of their
identity. However there is little research into the impact of students who are isolated
from their own ethnic group in schools, therefore leaving it difficult to ascertain the
impact.
Yet another factor that needs to be taken into account regarding culture and peer
effects is the concept of ‘ethnic capital’. A further issue arising from peer effects and
Indigenous school segregation is the concept of ‘ethnic capital’. Giorgas (2000)
conceptualises the term as a distinct form of social capital as one’s community works
in the provision of identity, resources and helps to shape behaviour. Borjas (1992)
through an analysis of longitudinal data finds that ‘ethnic capital’ plays a major role in
intergenerational mobility and that a child’s outcomes not only depend on the
experiences of their parents, but that of the ethnic group of their parent’s generation.
This has a profound impact for the current issue of school sorting and the negative
impact that it can have on school performances. With residential and educational
segregation intrinsically linked (Ong and Rickles, 2004), the segregation of
communities can have strong impact on student outcomes with the segregation not
only drawn across ethnic lines, but socio economic as well. This leaves Indigenous
students who are concentrated in these areas experiencing peer effects extend beyond
the classroom.
There are many difficulties in measuring the effects of school segregation on
Indigenous students as outlined in the beginning of this section, however it is
important to document its extent for at least three main reasons. Firstly, an
understanding of the extent of Indigenous school sorting will help determine how
necessary it is to study its effect. Secondly, identifying the areas within Australia
where school sorting is greatest can help direct any policy response. Finally, it is
important to study the relative contribution of sorting by school sector as opposed to
sorting by geography.
Despite the difficulties in measuring the effect of school sorting on Indigenous
education outcomes, it is important to document its extent for at least three main
reasons. Firstly, an understanding of the extent of Indigenous school sorting will help
determine how necessary it is to study its effect. Secondly, identifying the areas
within Australia where school sorting is greatest can help direct any policy response.
Finally, it is important to study the relative contribution of sorting by school sector as
opposed to sorting by geography.
5
Data and methods for analysis
Data for this analysis was provided by ACARA based on administrative data
collections. Information was available for 8,588 schools in Australia, of which 1,848
were non-government schools (21.5 per cent). In total, there were 154,729 Indigenous
students in the sample in 2009, of which 13.8 per cent were attending a nongovernment school. Indigenous students made up 4.8 per cent of total students but
17
Draft – For comment not quotation
only 2.4 per cent of non-government students. Schools with missing information were
excluded from the analysis.
In addition to information on the school sector, the postcode of the school’s postal
address is also available. In most cases, this postcode corresponds to the school’s
physical location. However, in some cases the postcode information corresponds to a
Post Office Box that is in a different location to the school itself. This is most likely to
occur in remote Australia, with many schools using Darwin or Alice Springs Post
Office Boxes. Unfortunately, it is not possible to identify instances of this with the
data available.
Due in part to the potential misreporting of postcode information, but also because of
the small number of schools and Indigenous students in a number of the postcodes,
schools are also grouped by their Statistical Division (SD). This is the least
disaggregated level of geography in the Australian Standard Geographic
Classification below State or Territory, with 60 SDs in total.4 The SDs range in size
from 13,054 Indigenous students in the Sydney SD down to 110 students in Wimmera
(Victoria).
The simplest measure of sorting used in this paper is the commonly used Dissimilarity
Index (DI), which measures how evenly the Indigenous population is spread across
schools, or the degree of departure from a completely even distribution where every
school has the same proportion of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians as the
national average (Massey & Denton 1988). The DI ranges from 0–1 and represents
the proportion of Indigenous (or non-Indigenous) Australians who would
hypothetically need to changes schools to result in a perfectly even distribution.
Specifically, the DI is calculated as:
DI =
1 n p1i p2i
∑ −
2 i =1 P1 P2
where:
n j is the total number of schools in Australia;
p1,i is the number of Indigenous students in the ith school;
P1 is the total number of Indigenous students in Australia;
p2,i is the number of non-Indigenous students in the ith school; and
P2 is the total number of non-Indigenous students in Australia.
DI can be calculated for Australia as a whole, or separately for each SD. However,
one of the potential causes of school sorting in Australia is the relative distribution of
the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations geographically. Biddle showed that
Indigenous Australians are much less likely than non-Indigenous Australians to live in
major urban centres and more likely to live in remote areas. Furthermore, he
demonstrated that there is a large degree of residential sorting by neighbourhood
within urban centres (Biddle 2009a).
18
Draft – For comment not quotation
In order to gauge the extent to which school sorting is due to the respective
geographic distributions of the two populations, a decomposable index is required.
Unfortunately, the DI does not meet this requirement. Another measure of evenness
that does is the Entropy Index, first proposed in Theil (1972), but taken in this paper
from Reardon and Firebaugh (2002). First, letting the measure of diversity of the
population (E) be defined as:
M
⎛ 1 ⎞
E = ∑ π m ln ⎜ ⎟
m =1
⎝ πm ⎠
In the above (general) equation, there are M population subgroups. However, in the
specific context of this paper, there are only two groups, with m=1 referring to the
Indigenous population and m=2 referring to the non-Indigenous population. The
proportion of the total population in each group (π m ) is then defined as:
πm =
Pm
M
∑P
m =1
m
The relevant index (H) for Australia as a whole is defined as:
H=
n
pi
1 M
π
rim ln ( rim )
∑
m∑
E m=1 i =1 P
where:
pi is the total number of (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) students in the ith school;
P is the total number of (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) students in Australia; and
rim is the proportion of the population in the ith school that belong to the population
sub-group m, divided by the proportion of the Australian population (that is,
π im
).
πm
The first way in which the Theil index for Australia is decomposed is into sorting
between and within SDs. Sorting between SDs ( H K ) is calculated quite simply by
replacing schools by SDs as the unit of analysis. Within SD sorting is calculated as a
weighted average of school-level sorting calculated for each SD separately ( H k ) .
Specifically:
K
Pk Ek
Hk
k =1 PE
H = HK + ∑
Having decomposed total school sorting into sorting within SDs (by school) and
between SDs, the next step is to further decompose the level of sorting within each
SD. This is done in two ways – sorting within and between postcode and sorting
within and between school sector (that is government and non-government schools).
19
Draft – For comment not quotation
One downside of H, at least relative to DI, is that it does not have as intuitive a
meaning. While it varies between a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 1, within these
bounds it is difficult to interpret the significance of each particular value in absolute
terms. Rather, the size of H for each SD should be interpreted relative to the value for
other comparable SDs with the within (or between) sorting interpreted alongside the
total sorting in the SD. It should be noted, however, that there is a strong positive
relationship between DI calculated for each SD separately and sorting for each SD
using the Theil Index. For example, the bivariate correlation between H k and Dk is
0.9051.
The appeal of DI and the H is that they provide a single index for Australia as a whole
or for a particular SD. However, as argued by Johnston et al. (2002), this is also one
of their limitations. In essence, a single index does not give a good indication of the
experience of Indigenous students in terms of the Indigenous composition of their
school. The final way in which school sorting is measured is therefore through the use
of threshold values. That is, the percentage of Indigenous or non-Indigenous students
in an SD (or Australia as a whole) that are attending schools where Indigenous
students make up the following per cent of total enrolments: 0 per cent; more than 0
per cent but less than 2.5 per cent; 2.5 per cent to less than 5 per cent; 5 per cent to
less than 10 per cent; 10 per cent to less than 25 per cent; 25 per cent to less than 50
per cent; and 50 per cent or more.
6
Results
6.1
Indices
The first set of results presented in this section gives the DI alongside the number of
Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, the surface area of the SD (in square
kilometres) as well as the number of government and non-government schools in the
sample. Results are presented separately for all SDs with an Indigenous student
population greater than 2,000, as well as for Australia as a whole. Results for smaller
SDs are available upon request.
20
Draft – For comment not quotation
Table 1: Dissimilarity Index and other student and school characteristics –
Statistical Divisions with 2,000 or more Indigenous students, 2009
State
SD
Area
(km2)
Students
Schools
DI
Indigenous
NonIndigenous
Govt.
NonGovt.
12,143
13,054
604,083
993
309
0.523
273,160
11,688
34,191
99
35
0.549
NSW
Sydney
Qld
Far North
Qld
Brisbane
5,902
10,675
298,860
380
156
0.381
WA
Perth
5,386
8,808
244,110
448
130
0.512
NT
Northern Territory
– Bal
7,325
2,898
73
18
0.861
1,349,083
Qld
Northern
80,038
5,218
34,240
77
32
0.431
NSW
Hunter
28,997
5,117
90,917
237
67
0.327
NSW
North Western
200,094
4,835
15,076
74
27
0.457
NSW
Northern
99,756
4,593
25,435
120
33
0.361
WA
Kimberley
420,794
4,559
2,361
24
19
0.546
SA
Adelaide
1,827
4,531
172,868
315
114
0.483
NSW
Mid-North Coast
25,524
4,452
45,085
139
41
0.349
Qld
Fitzroy
122,969
3,421
34,237
102
28
0.342
Qld
Wide Bay-Burnett
52,377
3,420
43,603
137
28
0.343
Vic
Melbourne
7,694
3,170
465,912
828
151
0.542
NSW
Illawarra
8,309
3,077
62,258
134
37
0.382
NSW
Central West
63,067
2,736
27,676
109
34
0.376
Qld
Darling Downs
90,248
2,661
39,666
122
39
0.362
WA
Central
604,005
2,649
9,233
47
11
0.566
WA
Pilbara
506,539
2,570
6,232
30
7
0.406
NSW
Richmond – Tweed
10,291
2,562
35,273
119
35
0.394
NT
Darwin
3,122
2,416
11,256
25
17
0.326
Tas
Greater Hobart
1,357
2,273
35,627
82
28
0.356
Qld
North West
308,087
2,250
3,537
23
6
0.461
Qld
Mackay
90,346
2,039
25,576
71
18
0.328
7,700,700
154,729
3,045,190
7,056
1,848
0.558
Australia
Source: Customised calculations using data provided by ACARA.
Looking at the last row of the table, the DI for Australia as a whole (including the
other 35 SDs not presented in the table) implies that 55.8 per cent of Indigenous
students would have to change schools to result in a completely even distribution of
21
Draft – For comment not quotation
Indigenous and non-Indigenous students across schools. According to Rickles and
Ong (2001: 2) ‘DI scores above 60 are considered to represent high segregation, while
scores between 40 and 60 indicate moderate segregation and scores below 40 indicate
low segregation.’
To further put these results into perspective, the DI value in 2001 in England for
Asian students was 0.698 and for Black students 0.687 (Burgess et al. 2005). In the
US in 1998–99, average school sorting of African American primary school students
was 66.8 compared to 47.7 for Asian/Pacific Islander students, and 59.0 for Hispanic
students (Rickles & Ong 2001). This further confirms that sorting of Indigenous
students across Australian schools appears to be in the moderate to high range.
The level of residential sorting by neighbourhood for Indigenous Australians across
the country also calculated using the DI was, according to the 2006 Census, 0.620.5
So, while the level of school sorting in Australia (using the DI) is reasonably high, it
would appear that schools even out somewhat the distribution of Indigenous students
based on their neighbourhood. This is in comparison to the situation in the US where
residential sorting tended to be lower than school sorting.
One would expect that the DI for each SD would on average be lower than that for
Australia as a whole due to between-district sorting. As expected, the average value
for the 60 SDs was 0.409. The highest value was found in the ‘Northern Territory –
Balance’ SD. With 7,325 Indigenous students but only 2,898 non-Indigenous
students, 86.1 per cent of Indigenous students in this SD would have had to change
schools to lead to a completely even distribution. Of the other SDs in Table 1 with a
DI value of greater than 0.5, three were in large capital cities (Sydney, Perth and
Melbourne). Brisbane, the SD with the third largest Indigenous population, has a DI
value of 0.381, a little below the national average and well below cities of a
comparable size.
Using the Theil index (H), total school-level sorting was estimated to be 0.308. While
this figure is a little hard to interpret, the important point to note is that 50.4 per cent
of this sorting was due to sorting between SDs. In other words, roughly half of the
sorting at the national level is due to the different SDs in which Indigenous
Australians live, as opposed to the schools that they are attending within these SDs.
There are two factors that affect the contribution that each SD makes to overall
within-SD sorting, the level of sorting calculated for each SD separately and the
relative size of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous student population in the SD. In
essence, SDs that are more segregated and those that are larger in terms of student
size make a greater contribution to the overall level of sorting within SDs.
Table 2 gives the level of sorting for each SD (calculated using the Theil Index), as
well as the contribution that each SD makes to overall within-SD sorting. The latter is
normalised in percentage terms, with the contribution across the 60 SDs in the sample
equal to 100. Results for the SD-specific decomposition are also given in Table 2.
22
Draft – For comment not quotation
Table 2: Decomposing total school sorting by postcode and school sector –
Statistical Divisions with 2,000 or more Indigenous students, 2009
State
SD
SD-specific
sorting
Contribution
to overall
within
By sector
By postcode
Between
Within
Between
Within
NSW
Sydney
0.193
12.9
0.012
0.181
0.121
0.072
Qld
Far North
0.366
10.1
0.043
0.323
0.211
0.155
Qld
Brisbane
0.117
5.7
0.017
0.100
0.056
0.061
WA
Perth
0.203
8.2
0.023
0.179
0.079
0.124
NT
Northern Territory
– Bal
0.687
4.4
0.223
0.464
0.416
0.271
Qld
Northern
0.234
3.8
0.008
0.226
0.065
0.169
NSW
Hunter
0.083
1.7
0.018
0.065
0.033
0.050
NSW
North Western
0.224
2.6
0.044
0.180
0.116
0.108
NSW
Northern
0.175
2.4
0.027
0.148
0.070
0.106
WA
Kimberley
0.312
1.5
0.008
0.304
0.148
0.164
SA
Adelaide
0.176
3.9
0.030
0.146
0.092
0.084
NSW
Mid-North Coast
0.127
2.0
0.016
0.111
0.043
0.084
Qld
Fitzroy
0.138
1.7
0.017
0.121
0.077
0.061
Qld
Wide Bay –
Burnett
0.143
1.8
0.018
0.124
0.069
0.074
Vic
Melbourne
0.187
3.8
0.011
0.176
0.087
0.100
NSW
Illawarra
0.124
1.6
0.021
0.103
0.056
0.067
NSW
Central West
0.134
1.3
0.021
0.113
0.064
0.070
Qld
Darling Downs
0.110
1.2
0.032
0.077
0.021
0.089
WA
Central
0.339
2.3
0.079
0.260
0.180
0.159
WA
Pilbara
0.259
1.5
0.003
0.255
0.122
0.137
NSW
Richmond – Tweed
0.136
1.4
0.029
0.107
0.035
0.101
NT
Darwin
0.095
0.6
0.000
0.095
0.020
0.076
Tas
Greater Hobart
0.098
0.9
0.033
0.064
0.052
0.046
Qld
North West
0.267
1.1
0.052
0.215
0.129
0.138
Qld
Mackay
0.084
0.6
0.028
0.056
0.020
0.064
Australia (average)
0.169
1.7
0.023
0.146
0.081
0.088
Source: Customised calculations using data provided by ACARA.
Table 2 shows that large SDs in terms of either their Indigenous student and/or nonIndigenous student populations can make a large contribution to national-level
sorting, even with low levels of within-SD sorting. For example, with a value of
0.117, the Brisbane SD has a relatively low level of measured sorting (ranked 40th out
of the 60 SDs). However, it makes the fourth-largest contribution to Australia-wide
sorting, after Sydney, Far North Queensland and Perth. From a policy perspective,
23
Draft – For comment not quotation
this means that any response to school-level sorting cannot ignore large cities, even if
the sorting within those cities is reasonably small.
In general, with an average of 0.023, the level of sorting between school sectors
within an SD is relatively small. There is only one SD where sorting of Indigenous
students by school sector is greater than 0.1, namely Northern Territory – Balance.
Furthermore, even after taking into account the overall level of sorting, there are only
nine SDs where between-sector sorting makes up one quarter or more of the SDspecific sorting. SD-specific sorting is more evenly disaggregated into sorting
between and within postcodes. The relative contribution of sorting between the
postcode of the school to overall SD-specific sorting (for those SDs in the table)
ranges from around 60 per cent in Sydney and Northern Territory – Balance to under
20 per cent in Darling Downs (Queensland) and the Northern Territory.
6.2
Factors associated with school sorting indices
Both Tables 1 and 2 showed significant variation across SDs in terms of school
sorting by Indigenous status, whether measured by the DI or the Theil Index (H). The
obvious question that follows is, ‘What factors are driving these differences?’.
Sorting of students across different schools (and school sectors) is a complex process.
It is likely to be influenced by the residential choices that individual families make,
their preference for particular schools and their capacity to achieve these preferences.
All these factors are likely to interact with the institutional and geographical context
within which the individual families are making their choice.
Unfortunately, many of the factors that influence preferences and capacity to choose
are unobservable. Furthermore, school choice is generally made by individual families
and households, whereas the data on school composition is usually only available in
aggregate form. These restrictions notwithstanding, there is some information
available from the school administrative database and the most recently released
(2006) Census that can be used as proxies.
Table 3 presents the results from an analysis of the factors associated with the various
school sorting indices presented in Tables 1 and 2. The unit of observation is the SD,
and there are six models estimated, each with a separate dependent variable. The first
two dependent variables relate to SD-specific discrimination, measured using either
the DI or the Theil Index (H). The second set of dependent variables relates to sorting
between and within school sector for the SD, and the third set of dependent variables
sorting between and within postcodes.
As the six variables of interest have a minimum value of zero and a maximum value
of one, it is necessary to transform them in order to guarantee predictions that fall
within that range. A simple logit transformation is used such that, for each variable of
interest in the kth SD ( yk ) , the dependent variable ( zk ) is calculated
⎛ y ⎞
as zk = ln ⎜ k ⎟ . This transformed dependent variable is then assumed to be a linear
⎝ 1 − yk ⎠
function of the explanatory variables and their coefficients. That is, zk = X k β .
Fortunately, there are no instances where ( yk = 0) or ( yk = 1) and therefore ( zk ) is
24
Draft – For comment not quotation
defined for all SDs. The relationship between the original variable of interest and the
explanatory variables (used for predictions and the calculation of marginal effects)
⎛
⎞
1
⎟.
is yˆ k = ⎜
⎜ 1 + exp − X βˆ ⎟
k
⎝
⎠
(
)
There are three types of explanatory variables used in each model. The first set relates
to characteristics of the schools in the area, including the total number of schools and
the percentage of schools that are in the non-government sector. The second set
relates to characteristics of the students, including the total number of students, the
percentage of students who are Indigenous and the number of students per square
kilometre.
The final set of explanatory variables comes from the 2006 Census. Variables
included are the average socioeconomic rank of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous
usual residents (from Biddle 2009b) and the level of residential sorting by
neighbourhood of Indigenous usual resident students. Socioeconomic status is
incorporated via the rank value of that particular SD, with higher values implying
greater socioeconomic disadvantage.
Results in Table 3 are presented as predicted marginal effects for the original (untransformed) variable. Specifically, the predicted level of sorting is calculated for an
SD that has the mean characteristics for all the explanatory variables. For each
explanatory variable, a separate prediction is made for an SD with a value one
standard deviation higher for that variable, but identical values for all other
explanatory variables. The difference between this latter prediction and the prediction
for the base case (given in the second last row of the table) is taken to be the marginal
effect. Mean values and standard deviations for the explanatory variables are given in
Appendix Table A1. Variables that were significant at the 1 per cent level of
significance are marked ‘***’, those that were significant at the 5 per cent level only
are marked ‘**’, and those that were significant at the 10 per cent level are marked
‘*’.
25
Draft – For comment not quotation
Table 3: Factors associated with Indigenous school sorting by Statistical Division
Explanatory variables
Total sorting
By sector
By postcode
DI
Theil
Between
Within
Between
Within
Number of schools
0.109
0.079
0.035
0.260
0.076
0.003
Per cent of schools nongovernment
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.019***
–0.009*
Total number of students
–0.085
–0.046
–0.016
–0.010
–0.039
0.008
Per cent of students who are
Indigenous
0.042***
0.021**
0.007
0.003
–0.001
0.016**
Number of students per km2
0.018
0.012
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.011
0.040***
0.064***
0.068***
0.000
0.027***
0.040***
–0.003
–0.010
–0.008
0.000
–0.002
–0.002
0.060***
0.031***
0.030***
–0.002
0.023***
0.009**
0.404
0.147
0.125
0.010
0.076
0.060
0.6933
0.7590
0.7709
0.0469
0.4829
0.6728
Socioeconomic rank of
Indigenous usual residents
Socioeconomic rank of nonIndigenous students
Residential sorting of
Indigenous usual resident
students by Census CD
Predicted value for the base
case
Adjusted R-Squared
Source: Customised calculations using data provided by ACARA and from the 2006 Census.
According to the results presented in Table 3, there were three variables that were
significantly associated with SD-specific sorting (using both DI and H). SDs where a
higher percentage of students were Indigenous were more likely to have relatively
high levels of school sorting than those where Indigenous students made up less of the
student population.
The socioeconomic rank of Indigenous usual residents is also associated with school
sorting in the area. Specifically, those SDs with more disadvantaged Indigenous usual
residents have a greater level of school sorting. It is unclear whether this is because
Indigenous students in the area have a lower capacity to change schools or because
non-Indigenous students were more likely to opt out of schools with
socioeconomically disadvantaged Indigenous Australians. Alternatively, it may be
that school sorting is causing socioeconomic disadvantage, rather than vice-versa.
This latter explanation is unlikely, however, as the measure of socioeconomic
outcomes is dominated by characteristics of adults as opposed to youth. Whatever the
explanation, the results presented in Table 3 show that those students who live in the
most disadvantaged SDs are also likely to attend the most segregated schools.
Finally, SDs that have a greater level of residential sorting of Indigenous students by
neighbourhood are also more likely to have a greater level of school sorting. While
this is not surprising, it does nonetheless show that what happens in the school system
with regards to sorting is likely to mirror to a certain extent what is happening in the
wider society in terms of sorting by neighbourhood.
26
Draft – For comment not quotation
For the most part, the above three variables were also significantly associated with the
decomposition components. In addition, the percentage of schools that were in the
non-government sector was positively associated with sorting between postcodes (at
the 5 per cent level of significance), but negatively associated with sorting within
postcodes (at the 10 per cent level of significance). While it is interesting to note that
this variable was not associated with the decomposition by sector-dependent
variables, the results do suggest that a high proportion of non-government schools
(which are unevenly distributed within SDs) may be encouraging non-Indigenous
students to attend school in particular postcodes.
Given the results presented in Table 3 are from a single cross-section and based on a
sample of 59 SDs only, the interpretations given can only be classed as speculative.
Nonetheless, they do suggest that there are particular structural and behavioural
drivers to the patterns of Indigenous school sorting. Alongside the effects of school
sorting, these determinants are an important avenue of further research using more
detailed data sources.
6.3
Threshold values
The index values presented and analysed in the two previous sections provide a useful
summary of school sorting. However, summary indices like DI and H can tell very
little about the experience of individual students. Are there one or two schools in each
SD that contain a large proportion of the Indigenous school population, with the
remainder of the population spread across a number of schools? Or, alternatively, are
there a number of schools where Indigenous students make up a sizable minority of
the student body, with the vast majority of schools having no Indigenous students?
Both scenarios could potentially have a similar index value. However, the outcomes
from and policy responses to the two situations are likely to differ substantially.
The analysis presented in this section attempts to draw some information from this
experience by considering the distribution of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students
by the Indigenous share of the school. Table 4 gives the percentage of Indigenous
students who are in a school that falls within one of seven threshold values, whereas
Table 5 repeats the analysis for non-Indigenous students (with the addition of a third
column for schools with zero Indigenous students). The first column of results in
Table 4 gives the percentage of the total student population in that SD who identify as
being Indigenous.
27
Draft – For comment not quotation
Table 4: Percentage of Indigenous students by Indigenous share of school, 2009
State
SD
Indigenous
share of
SD student
population
Indigenous share of school
0–2.5%
2.5–5%
5–10%
10–25%
25–50%
50% or
more
2.1
22.9
27.1
22.5
21.2
5.3
0.9
NSW
Sydney
Qld
Far North
25.5
0.2
2.8
4.3
23.1
16.9
52.7
Qld
Brisbane
3.4
16.7
33.0
28.9
17.0
2.4
2.1
WA
Perth
3.5
17.3
16.5
27.4
30.1
7.6
1.2
NT
Northern
Territory –
Bal
71.7
0.1
<0.1
3.6
1.2
2.1
93.0
Qld
Northern
13.2
1.4
8.6
11.1
47.5
17.5
13.9
NSW
Hunter
5.3
7.2
21.0
42.3
24.7
4.9
<0.1
NSW
North
Western
24.3
0.4
0.4
7.6
20.7
40.4
30.5
NSW
Northern
15.3
0.6
2.6
12.9
47.0
15.0
21.9
WA
Kimberley
65.9
<0.1
<0.1
1.1
<0.1
18.8
80.1
SA
Adelaide
2.6
21.1
27.1
22.2
24.5
3.2
1.9
NSW
Mid-North
Coast
9.0
2.0
10.5
24.8
46.4
9.9
6.3
Qld
Fitzroy
9.1
2.2
8.9
26.8
47.4
9.5
5.1
Qld
Wide Bay –
Burnett
7.3
3.3
19.3
28.2
32.3
9.3
7.5
Vic
Melbourne
0.7
66.4
20.3
8.0
4.7
<0.1
0.6
NSW
Illawarra
4.7
10.5
22.5
34.4
24.5
6.8
1.3
NSW
Central West
9.0
2.4
1<0.1
25.3
36.0
25.0
1.4
Qld
Darling
Downs
6.3
5.3
15.0
32.9
38.0
8.1
0.7
WA
Central
22.3
0.7
3.9
4.0
11.1
33.7
46.6
WA
Pilbara
29.2
<0.1
1.4
2.4
32.1
35.2
28.9
NSW
Richmond –
Tweed
6.8
4.4
21.0
23.4
32.4
17.5
1.3
NT
Darwin
17.7
<0.1
1.1
8.0
42.2
48.7
<0.1
Tas
Greater
Hobart
6.0
6.5
16.4
32.3
43.7
1.1
<0.1
38.9
<0.1
0.8
0.6
17.6
31.6
49.5
Qld
North West
Qld
Mackay
7.4
3.2
17.1
29.8
43.0
6.9
<0.1
Australia
4.8
1<0.1
15.1
19.1
26.1
12.7
16.9
Source: Customised calculations using data provided by ACARA.
Note: Values of 0.0 have been labelled <0.1 to make it clear that there may still be a small number of students in those columns that do not register using one decimal place.
28
Draft – For comment not quotation
Focusing on the last row of the table, the first column of results shows that 4.8 per
cent of students in Australia identify as being Indigenous. For these students, 10.0 per
cent attended a school where less than 2.5 per cent of the school population were
Indigenous. A further 15.1 per cent were attending a school where between 2.5 per
cent and 5 per cent of the population were Indigenous. At the other end of the
distribution, 16.9 per cent of Indigenous students were attending a school where
Indigenous students made up the majority of the population.
The situation of Indigenous students in the Kimberley SD of Western Australia and
those of the Adelaide SD in South Australia make an interesting comparison. Both
have a similar number of Indigenous students – 4,559 and 4,531 – respectively.
However, the type of schools they attend (in terms of Indigenous share) are vastly
different. In Adelaide, 70.4 per cent of Indigenous students attend schools where less
than 10 per cent of the student body are Indigenous. In the Kimberley, on the other
hand, the comparable figure is 1.1 per cent. At the other end of the distribution, 80.1
per cent of students were attending an Indigenous-majority school compared to 1.9
per cent in Adelaide.
29
Draft – For comment not quotation
Table 5: Percentage of Non-Indigenous students by Indigenous share of school,
2009
State
SD
Indigenous share of school
0%
0–2.5%
2.5–5%
5–10%
10–25%
25–50%
50% or
more
34.8
40.5
15.5
6.2
2.9
0.3
<0.1
NSW
Sydney
Qld
Far North
0.3
5.6
24.0
17.8
36.7
11.5
4.0
Qld
Brisbane
9.9
43.1
29.7
13.2
3.9
0.1
<0.1
WA
Perth
16.8
49.7
15.2
11.7
5.8
0.6
<0.1
NT
Northern Territory
– Bal
0.3
7.9
<0.1
59.2
12.4
7.7
12.5
Qld
Northern
0.5
13.4
27.8
19.0
34.3
4.7
0.3
NSW
Hunter
3.2
27.2
30.3
29.2
9.4
0.7
<0.1
NSW
North Western
0.9
6.3
2.9
34.6
30.1
21.3
4.0
NSW
Northern
2.1
6.7
11.7
26.6
45.6
5.6
1.7
WA
Kimberley
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
20.2
<0.1
36.1
43.6
SA
Adelaide
26.3
42.9
18.7
7.5
4.4
0.2
<0.1
NSW
Mid-North Coast
2.5
13.8
24.8
30.8
26.4
1.4
0.2
Qld
Fitzroy
1.5
16.5
21.4
31.6
26.7
2.3
<0.1
Qld
Wide Bay –
Burnett
2.9
17.5
34.2
28.6
15.5
1.2
0.1
Vic
Melbourne
54.0
41.1
4.0
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
NSW
Illawarra
6.0
37.3
27.6
22.1
6.2
0.7
<0.1
NSW
Central West
5.1
15.3
23.9
30.9
20.2
4.5
0.1
Qld
Darling Downs
5.2
24.2
26.6
27.3
15.5
1.2
<0.1
WA
Central
0.9
16.5
28.2
15.0
15.5
19.4
4.5
WA
Pilbara
<0.1
<0.1
12.0
8.7
50.6
26.7
2.0
NSW
Richmond –
Tweed
5.2
20.2
38.3
20.2
13.2
2.8
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
5.7
23.9
52.0
18.3
<0.1
NT
Darwin
Tas
Greater Hobart
2.7
30.3
25.4
25.1
16.3
0.2
<0.1
Qld
North West
0.3
<0.1
9.6
5.4
43.1
32.3
9.2
Qld
Mackay
2.8
16.5
33.1
25.4
21.0
1.3
<0.1
Australia
22.3
38.3
19.1
11.7
7.2
1.2
0.2
Source: Customised calculations using data provided by ACARA.
Note: Values of 0.0 have been labelled <0.1 to make it clear that there may still be a small number of
students in those columns that do not register using one decimal place.
Table 5 showed that there were a high percentage of non-Indigenous students who
were attending a school that did not have any Indigenous students (the first column of
results). For Australia as a whole, 22.3 per cent of non-Indigenous students were in
30
Draft – For comment not quotation
such schools. While this is reasonably high, the SD of Melbourne stands out. In this
SD, more than half of non-Indigenous students were attending schools where there
was not a single Indigenous student. In Sydney, despite having the largest overall
number of Indigenous students, over a third of students were attending nonIndigenous only schools.
At the other extreme, only one out of every 500 non-Indigenous students were
attending a school where Indigenous students made up a majority of the school
population. On the other hand, going back to Table 3, 83.1 per cent of Indigenous
students were attending a school were the non-Indigenous population made up the
majority of school students.
7
Discussion and policy implications
The aim of this paper was to consider the level and distribution of school sorting in
Australia for Indigenous students. Using administrative data provided by ACARA
(and taken from the My School website) the analysis showed that 55.8 per cent of
Indigenous students would have to change schools to result in a completely even
distribution of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students across schools. While this is
reasonably high, it is lower than residential sorting of Indigenous students by
neighbourhood, implying that the school system has somewhat of an equalising effect
in terms of interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children and youth.
By using a decomposable index of school sorting, it was also possible to show that
roughly half of the observed school sorting was due to sorting of Indigenous students
by SDs. That is, Indigenous and non-Indigenous students attend different schools as
much because of the types of areas in which they live as opposed to sorting within
districts. Furthermore, it is mainly sorting by postcode as opposed to by school sector
that is driving the overall level of school sorting.
An important finding from the analysis was that those SDs that had the most
disadvantaged Indigenous usual residents (in terms of employment, education, income
and housing) also had the most segregated schools. This has potential implications for
the government’s policy of Closing the Gap in literacy, numeracy and educational
attainment. Specifically, those Indigenous students who are most likely to do
relatively poorly at school because of family or household circumstances were more
likely to be living in SDs where Indigenous and non-Indigenous students were
attending very different schools.
Perhaps the most noteworthy finding from the analysis was that 22.3 per cent of nonIndigenous students were attending schools without a single Indigenous student. This
rises to 34.8 per cent and 54.0 per cent for Australia’s two largest cities (Sydney and
Melbourne respectively). This is driven in part by a low proportion of Indigenous
students in these cities. However, the results show that even when looking at a single
urban postcode (which are generally reasonably small in geographic size), Indigenous
students are likely to attend one school, while the non-Indigenous population attends
another.
31
Draft – For comment not quotation
These findings have strong policy implications due to the negative effects that school
sorting has and therefore current policy directions need to be looked at through the
lens of school sorting.
Since the 1970s Australia has been deregulating its education system with parents
gaining greater choice in their child’s schooling. Government policies have centred on
boosting the private sector through increased funding, giving schools greater
autonomy and loosening school zoning. These all relate strongly to segregation, as the
case studies of New Zealand and the United States demonstrates.
The most significant change in Australian education has been the rise of private
schools. Federal funding for private education has grown considerably with funding
tripling from $1.9 million in 1995-1996 (57% of total federal funding to schools) to
$6.6 million (65% of total federal funding to schools). This has coincided with a raise
in the share of the student population private schools hold, up from just over 20% by
the end of the 1970s to 34% in 2011 (Ho, 2011).
This has followed the growth of the concept of school choice, with families becoming
more active in the search for schools, but with families unevenly equipped to make
education decisions, the opening up of the market for schools, primarily through
private education has a strong impact on levels of segregation (Ho, 2011; Connell,
2003). Campbell, et al, (2009) in an extensive study of school choice and the impact
of the changing nature of education in Australia found that although segregation has
occurred, it cannot be described as white flight, but instead middle class flight, as it
centres on socio-economic class rather than race. Yet due to the generally low socio
economic standing of Indigenous Australians, it has also resulted to a certain extent in
the segregation of this particularly minority group.
One of the most recent and significant policy developments in the area of school
choice has been the development of Independent Public Schools (IPS) in Western
Australia. The IPS initiative was announced by the WA government in 2009, with the
first schools transitioning to the new system in 2010. The stated aims of the policy are
to:
empower school communities by giving them greater capacity to shape the ethos, priorities and directions of their schools. Independent Public Schools assume greater responsibility for their own affairs and have greater flexibility to respond to their communities. They create more diversity in the public school system and help build strong communities that are more able to respond to the needs of students (Unlock your School’s future, 2014). In 2014, 264 schools were registered as IPS accounting for one third of all public
schools, with IPS schools in general being a varied range of schools (primary schools,
secondary schools, district high schools and educational support schools) from
metropolitan and regional areas and from varying socio-economic groups (Melbourne
Graduate School of Education, 2013).
This policy has wide influence with current Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Federal
Education Minister Christopher Pyne announcing their support for Independent Public
Schools through a $70 million initiative to help schools in states wishing to participate
32
Draft – For comment not quotation
moving towards greater autonomy, with increased parental and community
involvement and stronger roles for principles (Department of Education, 2014). The
Queensland government has also adopted the IPS policy with many schools
transitioning in 2013-2014, leaving no potential for analysis of their effects
(Education Queensland, 2013).
At the same time, IPS has also been met with strong criticism from education and
teachers unions, who are keen to compare them to charter schools in the United States
and outline the impact that charter schools have had on segregation and lack of
evidence for improved performances (Save Our Schools, 2013; SSTUWA, n.d.)
With the Western Australian reforms providing the foundation of current federal
policies it is necessary to ascertain its impact on segregation in Western Australia.
Research conducted by the Western Australian Education Department shows that IPS
have gained a privileged place in the hierarchy of schools. The data from the research
shows that for parents/carers of children in public primary schools, of those
considering sending their children to a private secondary school 58% considered IPS a
good alternative to private schools compared with only 36% who considered the same
for public schools in general. Also it showed that for the same group 61% thought that
IPS has higher quality teachers than public schools in general. Such a perception does
not match the data of the performance of schools with no noted differential between
public schools and IPS in areas of performance, attendance or behaviour. Yet with the
perception of a difference in quality there is a fear amongst education professionals
that a ‘two tiered’ system will develop to the detriment of public schools, with higher
income families choosing IPS over traditional public schools. Due to IPS being seen
as a viable alternative to private schools, and those who consider private schooling
generally being from higher socio-economic backgrounds, their movement away from
traditional public schooling could result in increases in social-economic segregation
(Melbourne Graduate School of Education, 2013), adding to Indigenous segregation
due to a disproportionate amount of Indigenous students coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
A further policy aimed at the promotion of ‘school choice’, has been the dezoning in
NSW of school districts, allowing families to choose schools outside of their locality.
Prior to these changes that occurred in the late 1980s and continued on in the 1990s,
all schools were zoned in their local catchment area, with children from that area to
attend that particular school. Whilst studies indicate that this shift has had little impact
on the choices of what primary school families send their children too, they also
indicate an impact in school selection for secondary schools, where parental/carer
decisions are more complex, with a school’s inclusiveness just as likely to been seen
as a handicap as an advantage (Esson and Johntson, 2002).
Evidence suggests that dezoning policies and others like it such as, transport subsidies
and boarding school allowances have led to a ‘white flight’ from schools according a
NSW Secondary Principles Council Survey, where schools containing Indigenous
students seeing non-Indigenous students leave (Patty, 2008). Yet as Campbell, et al,
(2009) has argued it cannot be described as white flight, but instead middle class
flight, as it centres on socio-economic class rather than race.
33
Draft – For comment not quotation
References
Altman, J (2009) Beyond Closing the Gap: Valuing diversity in Indigenous Australia,
Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, p
9-11
Angrist, J.D. & Lang, K. (2004) ‘Does school integration generate peer effects?
Evidence from Boston’s Metco Program’, The American Economic Review, 94 (5),
1613–1634.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) Statistical Geography Volume 1 – Australian
Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) July 2006, ABS cat. no. 1216.0,
Canberra, AGPS.
Australian Government (n.d.) Policies and Programs,
http://www.indigenous.gov.au/schooling/policy-programs/
Australian Human Rights Commission (1997) Bringing them Home: Report of the
National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Children from Their Families
Benabou, R. (1996) ‘Equity and efficiency in human capital investment: the local
connection’, The Review of Economic Studies, 63(2), 237-264.
Bereford, Q and Gray, J (2008) ‘A formidable challenge: Australia’s quest for equity
in Indigenous education’, Australian Journal of Education, 52 (2), 197-223
Biddle, N. (2009a) Location and Segregation: The Distribution of the Indigenous
Population Across Australia’s Urban Centres, CAEPR Working Paper no. 53,
Canberra, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National
University.
Biddle, N. (2009b) ‘Ranking regions: Revisiting an index of relative socioeconomic
outcomes’, Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 15 (3).
Biddle, N. & Yap, M. (2010) Demographic and socioeconomic outcomes across the
Indigenous lifecourse: Evidence from the 2006 Census, CAEPR Research Monograph
No. 31, Canberra, ANU E Press.
Bifulco, R. & Ladd, H.F. (2007) ‘School choice, racial segregation, and test-score
gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s Charter School Program’, Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 26 (1), 31–56.
Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2009) ‘Te kotahitanga:
Addressing educational disparities facing Māori students in New Zealand’, Teaching
and Teacher Education, 25(5), 734-742.
34
Draft – For comment not quotation
Borjas, G. J. (1992) ‘Ethnic capital and intergenerational mobility’, The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 107(1), 123-150.
Burgess, S., Wilson, D. & Lupton, R. (2005) ‘Parallel lives? Ethnic segregation in
schools and neighbourhoods’, Urban Studies, 42 (7), 1027–1056.
Burridge, N and Chodkiewicz, A (2012) ‘An Historical Overview of Aboriginal
Education Policies in the Australian Context’, in Burridge, N, et al, Indigenous
Education A Learning Journey for Teachers, Schools and Communities, Rotterdam,
Sense Publishers.
Campbell, C., Proctor, H., Sherington, G. (2009). School Choice: How parents
negotiate the new school market in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Clotfelter, C.T. (2004) After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School Desegregation,
Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Cole, W (2011) Uncommon schools: the global rise of postsecondary institutions for
Indigenous peoples, Stanford University Press.
Commonwealth of Australia (1937) Aboriginal Welfare: Intial Conference of
Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities, held in Canberra, 21-25 April,
1937.
Connell, R. W. 2003, ‘Working-class families and the new secondary education’,
Australian Journal of Education, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 235–50.
Demmert Jr, W. G., & Towner, J. C. (2003) A Review of the Research Literature on
the Influences of Culturally Based Education on the Academic Performance of Native
American Students, Northwest Regional Educational Lab, Portland, OR.
Department of Education, (2014) Students First, Commonwealth Government,
http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/
Department of Education (n.d.) Unlock your schools future, Government of Western
Australia.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(2009) Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage: The Challenge for Australia,
Canberra, FaHCSIA.
Dowling, A. (2007) Australia’s School Funding System, Camberwell, Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Echenique, F., Fryer, R. G., & Kaufman, A. (2006) ‘Is school segregation good or
bad?’ The American economic review, 265-269.
Education Queensland (2013) Independent Public Schools, Queensland Government
http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/independent-public-schools/
35
Draft – For comment not quotation
Epple, D., & Romano, R. (2011) ‘Peer effects in education: A survey of the theory
and evidence’, Handbook of social economics, 1(11), 1053-1163.
Esson, K and Johntson, K (2002) Inquiry into the Provision of Public Education in
NSW
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986) ‘Black students' school success: Coping with the
burden of acting white’, The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., Wang, J. (2010) Choice without Equity: Charter
School Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards, Los Angeles, CA: The
Civil Rights Project at UCLA
Friesen, J., & Krauth, B. (2010) ‘Sorting, peers, and achievement of Aboriginal
students in British Columbia’, Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne
d'économique, 43(4), 1273-1301.
Fiske, E. B and Lass, H. F. (2000) When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale,
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Fletcher, J (1989) Clean, Clad and Courteous: A History of Aboriginal Education in
New South Wales, Sydney, J.J. Fletcher.
Fryer Jr, R. G. (2010) The importance of segregation, discrimination, peer dynamics,
and identity in explaining trends in the racial achievement gap, National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Giorgas, D. (2000) Social capital within ethnic communities, Sociological
Sites/Sights, TASA 2000 Conference, Adelaide: Flinders University, December 6-8.
Godfrey, J., Partington, G., Harslett, M., & Richer, K. (2001) ‘Attitudes of Aboriginal
students to schooling’, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 5.
Guryan, J. (2004) ‘Desegregation and Black Dropout Rates’, American Economic
Review, 94 (4), 919-943.
Ho, Christina (2011) “‘My School’ and others: Segregation and white flight”,
Australian Review of Public Affairs,
http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2011/05/ho.html
Hoxby, C. (2000) Peer Effects in the Classroom: Learning from Gender and Race
Variation, NBER Working Paper no. 7867, Cambridge, National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Johnston, R.J., Poulsen, M. & Forrest, J. (2002) ‘Rethinking the analysis of ethnic
residential patterns: Segregation, isolation, or concentration thresholds in Auckland,
New Zealand?’, Geographical Analysis, 34 (3), 245–61.
36
Draft – For comment not quotation
Kirkness, V. J. (1999) ‘Aboriginal Education in Canada: A Retrospective and a
Prospective’, Journal of American Indian Education, 39 (1).
Lauder, H., Hughes, D., Watson, S. et al (1999) Trading in Futures: Why Markets in
Education Don’t Work, Buckingham: Open University Press
Le, A.T. & Miller, P.W. (2003) ‘Choice of school in Australia: Determinants and
consequences’, Australian Economic Review, 36 (1), 55–78.
Martin, S (2014) ‘Scullion flags boarding school for indigenous students’, The
Australian, February 13, 2014, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationalaffairs/policy/scullion-flags-boarding-school-for-indigenous-students/storyfn9hm1pm-1226825110001#
Massey, D.S. & Denton, N.A. (1988) ‘The dimensions of residential segregation’,
Social Forces, 67, 281–315.
Melbourne Graduate School of Education (2013) Evaluation of The Independent
Public Schools Initiative, Commissioned by The Department of Education, Western
Australia.
Miron, G., Urschel, J. L., Mathis, W. J., & Tornquist, E. (2010) ‘Schools without
Diversity: Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the
Demographic Stratification of the American School System’, Education and the
Public Interest Center.
Munns, G. & McFadden, M. (2000) ‘First chance, second chance or last chance?
Resistance and response to education’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21
(1), 59–75.
Nash, R. and Harker, R. (2005) ‘The predictable failure of school marketisation: the
limitations of policy reform’, in: J. Codd and K. Sullivan, Education Policy
Directions in Aotearoa: New Zealand, pp. 201–217. Southbank, Victoria: Thomson
Dunmore Press.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2010) List of Selective and
Agricultural High Schools, http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/gotoschool/types/
shs_ahs_details.php [accessed 16th May 2010].
Ong, P. M., & Rickles, J. (2004) ‘The Continued Nexus between School and
Residential Segregation’, The. Berkeley Women's LJ, 19, 379.
Orfield, G. (2001) Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of
resegregation, Harvard Civil Rights Project, Cambridge, MA.
Parbury, N. (1999) ‘Aboriginal Education – A History’, in R. Craven, Teaching
Aboriginal Studies, pp. 63–86 Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
37
Draft – For comment not quotation
Partington, G. (1998) Perspectives on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Education, Katoomba: Social Science Press.
Patty, A. 2008, ‘White flight leaves system segregated by race’, The Sydney Morning
Herald 10 March [online], Available:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/03/09/1204998283744.html
Phinney, J. S., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001) ‘The role of language,
parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families’,
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 135-153.
Purdie, N and McCrindle, A (2004) ‘Measurement of self-concept among Indigenous
and non-Indigenous Australian students’, Australian Journal of Psychology, 56 (1),
50-62
Reardon, S.F., Yun, J.T. & Mcnulty Eitle, T. (2000) ‘The changing structure of school
segregation: Measurement and evidence of multiracial metropolitan-area school
segregation, 1989–1995’, Demography, 37 (3), 351–364.
Reardon, S.F. & Firebaugh, G. (2002) ‘Measures of multigroup segregation’,
Sociological Methodology, 32, 33–67.
Renzulli, L. A., & Roscigno, V. J. (2008) ‘Charter schools and the public good’,
Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education, 363.
Rickles, J. & Ong, P.M. (2001) The Relationship Between School and Residential
Segregation at the Turn of the Century, Los Angeles, The Ralph and Goldy Lewis
Center for Regional Policy Studies.
Richards, J. (2008) ‘Closing the Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal education gaps’, CD
Howe Institute Backgrounder, (116).
Robinson, J., Witenberg, R. & Sanson, A. (2001) ‘The socialization of tolerance’. In
M. Augoustinos, and K.J. Reynolds (Eds.) Understanding Prejudice, Racism, and
Social Conflict, London, Sage.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1991) Report of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples, Ottawa, Canada Communications Group, 1991
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg31_e.html#104.
Ryan, C. & Watson, L. (2004) The Drift to Private Schools in Australia:
Understanding its Features, CEPR Discussion Paper no. 479, Canberra, Centre for
Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University.
Salvatore, S, et al. (2000) Racial Desegregation in Public Education in the United
States, National Park Service Department of the Interior Washington, D.C.
38
Draft – For comment not quotation
Save Our Schools (2013) Charter Schools Do No Better Than Other Public Schools,
http://www.saveourschools.com.au/choice-and-competition/charter-schools-do-nobetter-than-other-public-schools
Smith, A (2009) Indigenous Peoples and Boarding Schools: A comparative study,
Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
SSTUWA: State Schools Teachers’ Union of WA, (n.d.) Independent Public Schools,
http://www.sstuwa.org.au/sstuwa/independent-public-schools
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (2009)
Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2009, Canberra, Productivity
Commission.
Stephenson, M. (2006) ‘Closing the doors on the Māori Schools in New Zealand’,
Race Ethnicity and Education, 9(3), 307-324.
Theil, H. (1972) Statistical Decomposition Analysis, Amsterdam, North Holland.
Thrupp, M. (2007) ‘School admissions and the segregation of school intakes in New
Zealand cities’, Urban Studies, 44(7), 1393-1404.
Vass, G (2013) ‘So, What is Wrong with Indigenous Education? Perspective, Position
and Power Beyond a Deficit Discourse’, The Australian Journal of Indigenous
Education, 41 (2), 85-96
Zhou, L. (2009) Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary
School Districts: School Year 2006–07 (Fiscal Year 2007), NCES 2009-338,
Washington DC, National Center for Education Statistics.
39
Draft – For comment not quotation
Appendix tables
Table A1: Mean and standard deviation for explanatory variables used in table 3
Explanatory variables
Number of schools
Mean
Standard Deviation
149.119
217.712
18.869
7.993
53878.410
108004.300
10.613
13.498
8.743
20.469
Socioeconomic rank of Indigenous usual residents
31.220
17.523
Socioeconomic rank of non-Indigenous students
31.915
17.313
0.537
0.118
Per cent of schools non-government
Total number of students
Per cent of students who are Indigenous
Number of students per sqkm
Residential segregation of Indigenous usual resident students
by Census CD
40
Draft – For comment not quotation
Endnotes
1.
See http://myschool.edu.au/
2.
It is difficult to establish the extent to which children from relatively wealthy backgrounds are
advantaged in preparation for the selective school tests. However, the number of fee-paying exam
preparation services available suggest that there are some income constraints.
3.
There is unfortunately very little information available on the amount of resources devoted to the
education of Indigenous Australians through the school system. On the one hand, the school
funding model in Australia provides a greater level of Commonwealth and State dollars to schools
with a high Indigenous population. On the other hand, Indigenous students are less likely to attend
those schools that receive significant resources from compulsory school fees or fund raising
activities. This is an area of urgent research need.
4.
Schools are aggregated using a population weighted Postal Area (POA) to SD concordance
developed for this analysis. 2,385 of the 2,498 POAs fell wholly within a single SD. The
remaining 113 POAs (and schools) were allocated to the SD that the highest number of people in
that POA lived in. There were 104 schools that could not be allocated to any SD. These were
grouped into a 60th SD. Maps of the SDs can be found in ABS (2006).
5.
Neighbourhoods are proxied using Census Collection Districts (CDs), of which there were 37,516
in 2006 with at least one Indigenous or non-Indigenous student.
41