ABSTRACT
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
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.
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.
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.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
Commonwealth of Australia (2007). Becoming an Australian citizen. Barton, ACT: Attorney General’s Department.
Department of Education Science & Training (2003). Australia’s teachers: Australia’s future - advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/reviews/teaching_teacher_education/#Prioritising_science,_technology_and_mathematics_education.
Department of Immigration & Citizenship (2009). Visas, immigration and refugees. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/skilled-occupations/occupations-in-demand.htm.
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.
Gorard, S., & Smith, E. (2004). An international comparison of equity in education systems. Comparative Education, 41(1), 15–28.
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.
Kahlenberg, R. (2001). All together now: Creating middle-class schools through public school choices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
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.
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.
Lauder, H., & Hughes, D. (1999). Trading in futures: Why markets in education don’t work. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Matear, A. (2006). Equity in education in Chile: The tensions between policy and practice. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(1), 101–113.
McConney, A., & Perry, L. (2009). Socio-economic status, self-efficacy and mathematics achievement in Australia: A secondary analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
McGaw, B. (2007). Keynote speech. Paper presented at a meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Comparative and International Education Society, Auckland, New Zealand.
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 http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/-DAS_teachers-PartsA-d.pdf.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). School factors related to quality and equity: Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: Author.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 141–171.
Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.
Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126–141.
Thomson, S., & De Bortoli, L. (2008). Exploring scientific literacy: How Australia measures up. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Willms, J. D. (1986). Social class segregation and its relationship to pupils’ examination results in Scotland. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 224-241.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McConney, A., Perry, L.B. SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT IN AUSTRALIA: THE ROLE OF SCHOOL SOCIOECONOMIC COMPOSITION IN EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND EFFECTIVENESS. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 8, 429–452 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9197-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9197-4