• Andrew McConneyEmail author
  • Laura B. Perry


In this study, we systematically unpack relationships among student socioeconomic status (SES), science and mathematics achievement, and student interest in science in the context of varying school socioeconomic composition. Using the most recent Programme for International Student Assessment dataset for Australia, we found that increases in school SES are consistently associated with substantial increases in science and mathematics performance. This pattern of association held for all groups regardless of their individual SES. However, our findings also show that students’ interest in science was not associated with varying school SES, and only marginally and inconsistently associated with individual SES. We discuss policy implications and strategies for mitigating the influence of school socioeconomic composition on science and mathematics performance, and for the achievement of more equitable and effective educational outcomes generally.


Australia educational equity mathematics achievement PISA school SES science achievement science interest student SES 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernstein, B. (1961). Social class and linguistic development: A theory of social learning. In A. H. Halsey, J. Floud, & C. A. Anderson (Eds.), Education, economy and society (pp. 288–314). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burris, C. C., Wiley, E., Welner, K., & Murphy, J. (2008). Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 571–607.Google Scholar
  3. Caldas, S. J., & Bankston III, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 269–277.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  6. Commonwealth of Australia (2007). Becoming an Australian citizen. Barton, ACT: Attorney General’s Department.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Education Science & Training (2003). Australia’s teachers: Australia’s future - advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from,_technology_and_mathematics_education.
  8. Department of Immigration & Citizenship (2009). Visas, immigration and refugees. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from
  9. Edwards, D. (2006). Competition, specialisation and stratification: Academic outcomes of the government school system in Melbourne, Australia. Paper presented at the Comparative Education Society in Europe, Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
  10. Gorard, S., & Smith, E. (2004). An international comparison of equity in education systems. Comparative Education, 41(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(5), 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahlenberg, R. (2001). All together now: Creating middle-class schools through public school choices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  13. Lamb, S. (2007). School reform and inequality in urban Australia: A case of residualising the poor. In R. Teese, S. Lamb, & M. Duru-Belat (Eds.), Education and inequality (vol. 3, pp. 1–38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Lamb, S., Hogan, D., & Johnson, T. (2001). The stratification of learning opportunities and achievement in Tasmanian secondary schools. Australian Journal of Education, 45(2), 153–167.Google Scholar
  15. Lauder, H., & Hughes, D. (1999). Trading in futures: Why markets in education don’t work. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2005). A new look at public and private schools: Student background and mathematics achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 696–699.Google Scholar
  18. Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(2), 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matear, A. (2006). Equity in education in Chile: The tensions between policy and practice. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(1), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McConney, A., & Perry, L. (2009). Socio-economic status, self-efficacy and mathematics achievement in Australia: A secondary analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  21. McGaw, B. (2007). Keynote speech. Paper presented at a meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Comparative and International Education Society, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  22. Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training & Youth Affairs (2004). Demand and supply of primary and secondary school teachers in Australia. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from
  23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). School factors related to quality and equity: Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2001). Relationship between school composition and characteristics of school process and their effect on mathematics achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 7–8.Google Scholar
  29. Rothman, S. (2003). The changing influence of socioeconomic status on student achievement: Recent evidence from Australia. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  30. Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107(9), 1999–2045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomson, S., & De Bortoli, L. (2008). Exploring scientific literacy: How Australia measures up. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  36. Willms, J. D. (1986). Social class segregation and its relationship to pupils’ examination results in Scotland. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 224-241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Murdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia

Personalised recommendations