PISA a downwards slope for our students

After analysing Australia's results in a number of international tests two University of Melbourne researchers, Kaye Stacey and Max Stephens, conclude, "While on average students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds in Australia are more likely to achieve at higher performance levels than students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds,the correlations in Australia, between socioeconomic background and performance have never been particularly strong when compared internationally".

They go on to say, "This means that socioeconomic background is not a particularly strong predictor of performanceat the level of the individual student in Australia with students from both high and low socioeconomic backgrounds achieving across the spectrum of performance".

The argument that non-government schools perform well, and that such performance is not simply because such schools only enrol privileged students, is also supported by research carried out by the ACER tracking some 13,000 students during their journey from year 9 to year 12.

On analysing the year 12 results achieved by the group of students, the researchers conclude, "Students who attended non-government schools outperformed students from government schools, even after talking into account socioeconomic background and achievement in literacy and numeracy".

The ACER report goes on to identify a number of factors that are more influential than socioeconomic background in determining whether students achieve strong year 12 results; including, students' prior academic achievement, having a disciplined and effective classroom environment, employing motivated and well qualified teachers, having high expectations of students and schools reflecting the types of values and beliefs favoured by parents.

It's no secret that such characteristics, with a few exceptions, are associated with Catholic and independent schools and explain why parents are voting with their feet and flocking to such schools.

It's also no secret that critics like Bonnor and the Australian Education Union, in addition to pressuring governments to reduce funding, are keen to see non-government schools lose their autonomy and flexibility by restricting their growth and forcing them to become more like state schools.

Such is already happening. Non-government schools, while exercising a greater degree of autonomy than government schools, have to abide by a raft of state and Commonwealth regulations in areas like financial probity, health and safety, teacher registration and certification and curriculum.

As part of the ALP government's education revolution, involving a number of National Partnership Agreements and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008, it's also the case that funding is tied to Catholic and independent schools conforming to government dictates.

In addition to non-government schools having to conform to government regulation and control in areas like testing and curriculum, the federal government has legislated to make it more difficult for schools to expand or for new schools to be built.

It's also the case that Australia lacks a voucher funding system where the money follows the student to whatever school attended - government or non-government.

Instead of agreeing with Bonnor and his argument that education in Australia has suffered because of school choice, an alternative argument is that any perceived failings are because we have failed to adopt a true market driven system.

Given the fact that Catholic and independent schools outperform government schools, even after adjusting for students' SES, an argument can also be put that the best way to overcome disadvantage is to properly fund non-government schools and to introduce vouchers or tax credits to allow more parents to embrace school choice.

At the same time, and proven by the fact that non-government schools were able to implement the government's Building the Education Revolution program more efficiently and cheaply than state schools, it is vital to free government schools from centralised, bureaucratic control and give them the autonomy to best reflect the needs and aspirations of their local communities.