Socioeconomic status and equity in secondary schools

The following report will address the question Are Australian schools meeting the
challenge of equity and access in our democratic society? in relation to the
socioeconomic status (SES) of students. It will look at how student equities are
addressed in schooling practices through the dominant discourses and inequalities of
SES in high schools and preventing students from going down pathways that they are
not made aware of. It will also look at why these equity issues occur through the
sociological Conflict Theory and gain an idea through the Social Learning theory
about how schools implement policies such as the Whole Schools Strategy and the
NSW Government Equity Policy to prevent a students socioeconomic status from
being a hindrance in the schooling environment. Along with these theories it will look
at whether choice of school that their parents decide to send them to, private or public,
as well as the teaching styles, choices and facilities that are available for students to
access to further their education.

Falk, Hampton, Hodgkinson, Parker & Rorris, 1993, explains equity as,

Equity derives from a concept of social justice. It represents a belief that

there are some things, which people should have, that there are basic needs
that should be fulfilled, that burdens and rewards should not be spread too
divergently across the community, and that policy should be directed with
impartiality, fairness and justice towards these ends.

Examples of this in the schooling environment include access, or rather lack of, to
technology or equipment to complete tasks that are asked of by the school; the ability
to participate in all schooling activities offered; and the equal attention of teachers
provided to all students, preventing some students receiving special attention whilst
others are neglected.

The current dominant discourse of SES is that those who come from higher SES
backgrounds (the rich) will receive better education from private schools than those

1
who come from lower SES back grounds (the poor) and the education provided by
public schools. The discourse is predominant as private schools receive more, and,
therefore have more money to spend on extra curricular activities and more improved
facilities and equipment, while public schools, only receiving very limited finance,
have old out dated equipment and limited funds to spend on extra curricular activities.
According to Devlin, 2013, first year students attending Western Sydney University
from low SES backgrounds and public schools found it harder to adapt the university
teaching styles than those who came from higher SES backgrounds and public
schools. This is an example of how the dominant discourse of how tertiary education
expects students from higher SES backgrounds should to go on to university while
those of low SES backgrounds have to adjust to the higher SES ways.

Another way students become hindered in their learning is through tracking.

Tracking is when schools place students in ranked classes based on the results
received on paper-based tests. By doing this, students who may be smart but don't
respond well with paper-based tests get held back in a class where the teachers aim
their style of teaching for less intelligent students. These lower ranked classes often
contain a higher number of low SES background students, whilst the high SES
students tend to receive the faster more content type teaching styles. Schools aim to
try and enhance learning for each and every student, but in some cases it just provides
a greater gap between the higher and lower educated students (Burris & Garrity,
2008).

A case study by Leicht, 2013, Effects of Different Types of Educational Tracking on

Achievement and Achievement Variance looks into the effects of tracking in
schools. Through literary review Leight, 2013, found that studies by Montt, 2011,
show students who get fast tracked into the higher classes do gain great achievement
but those in the lower classes decrease in achievement. The case study looked at the
results of the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) coordinated
by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) performed
by students from a range of countries including Australia. These countries were then
divided in to tracking and non/low tracking countries. The results were then compared
in both mathematics and reading along with the information of whether the students

2
parents had higher education (finished high school/some university) or lower
education (left school before year 12).

The results found by Leight, 2013, showed that there was a greater score variance in
tracking countries but the average score was slightly higher than countries, which did
not track their students. The results may show that the average is higher but may
mean that the smarter students are getting higher score but the struggling students are
getting lower scores.

The results also showed that students with parents of higher education scored an
average of 81 points higher in the mathematics and 77 points higher in reading than
those whos parents had a lower education. With Australia being a part of the
tracking countries, these results show that households with lower educated parents,
who tend to be of lower SES backgrounds, have children who get placed into tracking
classes. With the majority of these students being in the lower end of those classes
where the less educated produce a lower range of scores, it creates and inequality,
preventing those students to progress into further education, holding them back from
progressing out into the middle or higher SES in their futures.

The social injustices can be explained by Karl Marxs conflict theory. Conflict occurs
when one party doesn't receive the same amount of a product or resource as another
party. This is seen through Marxs conflict theory as the minority of the Bourgeoisie
(Rich, powerful and political leaders) received greater benefits than the Proletariat
(working class or poor). This can be put into the schooling context where by the
richer private schools have more funds available to buy the latest in technological
advances for teaching students, including computers; interactive whiteboards and
indoor facilities. Where as public schools can only use the funds that they are
allocated by the government, plus the small contributions from students optional
school fees.

Students who come from lower SES backgrounds can be limited in what they have
access to in promoting their education as their parents often dont put education as
priority, rather they prioritise more about providing food and the safety of their
children ("Education and Socioeconomic Status", 2010). With violence and crime

3
being more prevalent in low SES areas, students often have to deal with criminal
issues that may affect them personally or family members, which hinders their focus
on education and working towards a better life (4529.0 - Defining the Data Challenge
for Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2013", 2013).

A policy implemented by the NSW Department of Education and training was the
Whole schools strategy. This strategy aimed to build a positive relationship between
everyone and the community around in low SES area schools. By doing this, they
wanted the students to feel comfortable, happy and have a want to be at school. By
creating a more familiar and friendlier environment students would be more open to
learning and becoming involved with class activities. Within this policy, schools
added a positive merit system where by students were awarded merits for good
behavior. By eliminating or minimizing disruptive behavior, it allows for a better
learning environment (Rural Outcomes of Schooling Research Project Report, 2010).

The success of the Whole schools strategy can be discussed through Bandura, A.
(1977) Social Learning theory. McLeod, S. (2016) explains that the Social Learning
theory looks at how children are influenced by their surroundings and the people or
role models that they interact with the most. In many cases, students observe
behaviors of these role models and can make important life decisions based on the
views of these people or environments. With the policy aiming to create a positive
environment it allows the students to use Social Learning to behavior in a no obedient
manner and to engage in a learning experience that will enhance their chances at
beating the social norms placed on them due to their SES background.

Another policy implemented in schools to prevent the social injustices and inequities
towards students of lower SES is the NSW government equity policy, which is in
place to ensure each student receives the same amount of opportunities and attention
during school classes. This policy is one that each and every teacher in NSW must
abide by and to go against the policy would be a breach in their contract as well as the
equities that the NSW department of education is trying implement. Along with the
policy comes resources that are readily available for students and the wider
community at the state equity center, which offers the fair go library ("Equal
Opportunities (incl.. Anti-discrimination)", n.d.). This aims to allow students to

4
complete all tasks asked of them and a chance to further their knowledge and
education.

To answer the question Are Australian schools meeting the challenge of equity and
access in our democratic society?, I would say that yes they are doing what they can
with the tools that they are given. Teachers can mainly only control what happens in
the classroom or at the school, but once these students go home into what maybe a
troubled environment, a teacher cannot control what influences impact on the student.
Through researching into the topic of how the socioeconomic status of a student can
hinder their learning experience, I have found that there is a lot more that needs to be
done in order to minimize the inequalities that the lower SES students experience on a
wider national scale. By doing this it can limit the number of lower educated students
there are who then are unable to allow their own children the ability to succeed and
experience every opportunity that can be available to them. By not changing the
inequities, this cycle will continue and the poor will stay poor while the rich will
become richer. No student has the choice of what SES background they are born into
and it should not be a factor in the opportunities they are allowed to achieve. Nor
should a student be allowed greater opportunities because their parents can afford to
pay more money to someone to have their child receive special attention in the school
classroom.

Reference list

5
4529.0 - Defining the Data Challenge for Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence,
2013. (2013).Abs.gov.au. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4529.0main+features100012013

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Burris, C., & Garrity, D. (2008). Detracking for excellence and equity. Alexandria,
Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Devlin, M. (2013). Bridging socio-cultural incongruity: conceptualising the success of

students from low socio-economic status backgrounds in Australian higher
education. Studies In Higher Education, 38(6), 939-949.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.613991

Education and Socioeconomic Status. (2010). Apa.org. Retrieved 12 March 2016,

from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx

Equal Opportunities (incl.. Anti-discrimination). Schools.nsw.edu.au. Retrieved 12

March 2016, from
http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/studentsupport/studentwellbeing/equalopportunities.p
hp

Falk, J., Hampton, G., Hodgkinson, A., Parker, K., & Rorris, A. (1993). Social Equity
and the Urban Environment (p. 2). Canberra: Commonwealth Environment Protection
Agency, AGPS.

Leicht, E. (2013). Effects of Different Types of Educational Tracking on

Achievement and Achievement Variance. VURJ, 9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15695/vurj.v9i0.3795

McLeod, S. (2016). Bandura - Social Learning Theory. Retrieved from

www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html

Montt, G. (2011). Cross national differences in achievement inequality (pp. 49-68).

6
Rural Outcomes of Schooling Research Project Report. (2010) (1st ed., p. 15). NSW.
Retrieved from
http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/schoolsweb/learning/emsad/rural-
outcomes/rural_outcomes.pdf