Advertisement

Private financing in urban public schools: inequalities in a stratified education marketplace

  • Emma RoweEmail author
  • Laura B. Perry
Article

Abstract

This study examines inequalities of school funding as exclusively generated by the parent community in urban public schools, and potentially illuminates a secondary impact of between-school segregation. For schools that are largely understood as free, the substantial injections of private financing into public schools indicate a concerning tension for fairness and equity. Using a census dataset of all public schools in one Australian capital city (n = 150), we compare reported parent ‘contributions, fees and charges’ and how they are patterned by measures of school disadvantage and advantage. We found a statistically significant relationship between private financing and measures of school-based advantage or disadvantage, over a four-year period. Advantaged schools generate up to six times greater income in comparison to disadvantaged schools over a four-year period, and we argue that the substantial gaps function as another form of ‘compounded disadvantage’ for residualised public schools and a tiered effect of segregation.

Keywords

Segregation Public schools Socioeconomic status (SES) Parent contribution Parent fees Fundraising 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the work of Diana Langmead, a brilliant research assistant. We acknowledge funding we received for this study from Research for Educational Impact (REDI), Deakin University. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful reviews, which helped in strengthening this paper.

References

  1. ACARA (2015). Guide to understanding ICSEA (Index of Community Socioeducational Advantage) values: fact sheet. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Guide_to_understanding_icsea_values.pdf.
  2. ACARA (2018). MySchool website: glossary. Retrieved February 2, 2018, from https://www.myschool.edu.au/glossary/#o.
  3. Australian Government (2015). Australian Education Act 2013. Canberra: Department of Education and Training. Retrieved February 2, 2018, from https://www.education.gov.au/australian-education-act-2013.
  4. Australian Government. (2018). Through growth to achievement: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education and Training.Google Scholar
  5. Benito, R., Alegre, M. À., & Gonzàlez-Balletbò, I. (2014). School segregation and its effects on educational equality and efficiency in 16 OECD comprehensive school systems. Comparative Education Review, 58(1), 104–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billingham, C. M., & Kimelberg, S. M. (2013). Middle-class parents, urban schooling, and the shift from consumption to production of urban space. Sociological Forum, 28(1), 85–108.  https://doi.org/10.2307/23362176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 269–277.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1997.10544583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, C., Proctor, H., & Sherington, G. (2009). School choice: How parents negotiate the school market in Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  9. Chubb, J. (2013). A critique of “The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools”. Retrieved October 2, 2015, from http://www.nais.org/Independent-Ideas/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=346.
  10. Cobbold, T. (2010). Save Our Schools research paper: Like school comparisons do not measure up: An analysis of flaws in like school comparisons on My School. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from www.saveourschools.com.au/file_download/35.
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Cucchiara, M. B. (2013). Marketing schools, marketing cities: Who wins and who loses when schools become urban amenities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Bortoli, L., & Thomson, S. (2010). Contextual factors that influence the achievement of Australia’s Indigenous students: Results from PISA 2000–2006. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  15. Department of Education and Training (2017). School charges and cost. Retrieved January 15, 2017, from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/parents/financial/Pages/parentpaymentfaqs.aspx#link3.
  16. Department of Education and Training (nd). Understanding parent payment categories. Melbourne: Department of Education and Training. Retrieved January 15, 2017, from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/principals/spag/management/PP_Parent-Payments_diagram.pdf.
  17. Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2013). State of Australian cities 2013. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure and Transport.Google Scholar
  18. Dix, K. L., Slee, P. T., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. P. (2012). Implementation quality of whole-school mental health promotion and students’ academic performance. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 17(1), 45–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2011.00608.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Field, S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gobby, B. (2016). Obliged to calculate: My School, markets, and equipping parents for calculativeness. Journal of Education Policy, 31(4), 421–431.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1083124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011). Australian Government review of funding for schooling: Final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Google Scholar
  22. Itkonen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (2007). An analysis of accountability policies in Finland and the United States. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 54(1), 5–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120601149664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lamb, S. (2007). School reform and inequality in urban Australia: A case of residualising the poor. In S. Daru-Bellat, S. Lamb, & R. Teese (Eds.), International studies in educational inequality, theory and policy (Vol. 3, pp. 672–709). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lamb, S., Jackson, J., Walstab, A., & Huo, S. (2015). Educational opportunity in Australia 2015: Who succeeds and who misses out. Melbourne: Mitchell Institute.Google Scholar
  25. Lipman, P. (2011). Contesting the city: Neoliberal urbanism and the cultural politics of education reform in Chicago. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(2), 217–234.Google Scholar
  26. Lubienski, C., Crane, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2008). What do we know about school effectiveness? Academic gains in public and private schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 89(9), 689–695.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20442608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. A. (2005). A new look at public and private schools: Student background and mathematics achievement. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 696–699.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20441883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. A. (2006). School sector and academic achievement: A multilevel analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 651–698.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043004651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lubienski, C. A., & Lubienski, S. T. (2013). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mueller, C. W., & Parcel, T. L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 52, 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD. (2016). Low-performing students: Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD. (2017). Educational opportunity forall: Overcoming inequality throughout the life course. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD (2018). OECD Education GPS: The world of education at your fingertips: Parental involvement. Retrieved November 8, 2018, from http://gpseducation.oecd.org/revieweducationpolicies/#!node=41727&filter=all. Accessed 8 November 2018.
  34. Palardy, G. J. (2013). High school socioeconomic segregation and student attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 714–754.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213481240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parliament of Victoria. (1998). Education (Self-Governing Schools) Act 1998. Melbourne: Parliament of Victoria.Google Scholar
  36. Perry, L. B., Lubienski, C., & Ladwig, J. (2016). How do learning environments vary by school sector and socioeconomic composition? Evidence from Australian students. Australian Journal of Education, 60(3), 175–190.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944116666519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2010). School socio-economic composition and student outcomes in Australia: Implications for education policy. Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2013). School socioeconomic status and student outcomes in reading and mathematics: A comparison of Australia and Canada. Australian Journal of Education, 57(2), 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2014). Access to academic curriculum in Australian secondary schools: A case study of a highly marketised education system. Journal of Education Policy, 29(4), 467–485.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.846414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Posey-Maddox, L. (2016). Beyond the consumer: Parents, privatization, and fundraising in US urban public schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 31(2), 178–197.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1065345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Posey-Maddox, L., Kimelberg, S. M., & Cucchiara, M. (2016). Seeking a ‘critical mass’: Middle-class parents’ collective engagement in city public schooling. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(7), 905–927.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.986564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powers, J. M. (2004). High-stakes accountability and equity: Using evidence from California’s public schools accountability act to address the issues in Williams v. State of California. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 763–795.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041004763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rowe, E. E. (2017). Middle-class school choice in urban spaces: The economics of public schooling and globalized education reform. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Rutkowski, D., & Rutkowski, L. (2013). Measuring socioeconomic background in PISA: One size might not fit all. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 259–278.  https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.3.259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmidt, W. H., Burroughs, N. A., Zoido, P., & Houang, R. T. (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational inequality: An international perspective. Educational Researcher, 44(7), 371–386.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15603982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Thompson, G., Adie, L., & Klenowski, V. (2017). Validity and participation: Implications for school comparison of Australia’s National Assessment Program. Journal of Education Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1373407.Google Scholar
  48. Thompson, G., & Harbaugh, A. G. (2013). A preliminary analysis of teacher perceptions of the effects of NAPLAN on pedagogy and curriculum. Australian Educational Researcher, 40, 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2017). Multiple paths towards education privatization in a globalizing world: A cultural political economy review. Journal of Education Policy, 32(6), 757–787.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1318453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Victorian Auditor-General’s Report (2015). Additional school costs for families (February 2015). Retrieved September 8, 2016, from https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20150211-School-costs.pdf.
  51. Watson, L., & Ryan, C. (2010). Choosers and losers: The impact of government subsidies on Australian secondary schools. Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Windle, J. A. (2015). Making sense of school choice: Politics, policies, and practice under conditions of cultural diversity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Winton, S. (2016). The normalization of school fundraising in Ontario: An argumentative discourse analysis. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 180, 1–32.Google Scholar
  54. Winton, S. (2018). Challenging fundraising, challenging inequity: Contextual constraints on advocacy groups’ policy influence. Critical Studies in Education, 59(1), 54–73.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1176062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Winton, S., & Milani, M. (2017). Policy advocacy, inequity, and school fees and fundraising in Ontario. Canada. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(40), 1–28.Google Scholar
  56. Wu, M. (2016). What national testing data can tell us. In B. Lingard, G. Thompson, & S. Sellar (Eds.), National testing in schools: An Australian assessment (pp. 18–29). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  2. 2.School of EducationMurdoch UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations