The unintended consequences of government policies

1
The unintended consequences of government
policies the historic power of rent-seekers
protecting positional goods . . . . .

• The public good the education of children
• The 2020 school education summit
• 28 June 2008, Sydney
• Barbara Preston
• barbara.preston_at_netspeed.com.au

2
First, some history .

• Frank Tate was Victorian Director General of
  Education at the turn of the 19th Century.
• He fought heroically for the establishment of
  public secondary education providing
  matriculation access to the University of
  Melbourne.

3

• He said that access to full secondary schooling
  is locked against the mass of people and can
  only be entered by the private stairways for
  which a heavy toll is charged.
• . . . and that those who reject full state
  secondary schooling do so because they regard
  such an extension as an attack upon their own
  class interest and privileges. (1905 annual
  report)

4
Legislation allowing public secondary schools
finally passed in 1910.

• However, the legislation was passed on condition
  that for some decades no public secondary school
  would be established that would compete with an
  existing nongovernment school that provided
  matriculation.
• Thus the relative weakness of Victorian public
  secondary education - in enrolment by middle and
  high income students and overall enrolment share
  - has its origins in rent-seekers successfully
  protecting their interests (their 'positional
  good in schooling) a century ago.

5

• Individual families (and communities) make
  decisions about schooling within the context of
  history and the framework of policy.

6

• There is, of course, great diversity within
  school sectors, and great complexity in causes
  and in consequences . . . .

7
Residualisation of public education An
anticipated consequence of Commonwealth policies.

• 1973
• There is a point beyond which it is not possible
  to consider policies relating to the private
  sector without taking into account their possible
  effects on the public sector whose strength and
  representativeness should not be diluted . . . As
  public aid for non-government schools rises, the
  possibility and even the inevitability of a
  changed relationship between government and
  nongovernment schooling presents itself.
• Schools in Australia, Interim Committee for the
  Australian Schools Commission (Karmel Committee),
  para. 2.13

8

• 1985
• . A continuing significant decline in the
  government school sectors share of overall
  enrolment is likely to change substantially the
  social composition of the student population in
  government schools, with potentially significant
  negative consequences for the general
  comprehensiveness of public school systems. The
  cumulative effect of these financial, educational
  and social consequences could, in the long term,
  threaten the role and standing of the public
  school as a central institution in Australian
  society. Such a development would be unwelcome to
  most citizens and is inconsistent with the stated
  policies of governments, as well as the major
  school interest groups, government and
  nongovernment
• Planning and Funding Policies for New
  Non-Government Schools, Commonwealth Schools
  Commission,
• para 20

9

• Commonwealth Government intervention in the mid
  1970s reversed the then increasing share of
  enrolments in government schools.

10
Share of total enrolments, government
nongovernment schools 1890 to 2007
From 1890 to 1980 the public sector share was
within 4 of 80. Its now 14 below.
Post WWII peak
11
Share of total enrolments, government
nongovernment schools 1971 to 2007
12
Government sector share of secondary enrolments,
1994 2006
13
Secondary enrolment shares, government, Catholic
and independent sectors, states and territories,
2006
14

• Decades of ABS Census data shows
• an increasing concentration of low SES students
  in the contracting government sector
• an increasing concentration of high SES students
  in the expanding Catholic and other nongovernment
  sectors.

15
Ratio of the of all students with LOW family
incomes to the of all students with HIGH family
incomesGovernment Nongovernment secondary
schools 1986-2006Indexed to ratio for all
schools (1.0)
16
Percentage of students in government, Catholic
and other nongovernment schools with low, medium
or high family incomes, 2006
Low (lt 1000/wk) Medium
(1000-1699/wk) High (gt1700/wk)
17
Percentage of students in government, Catholic
and other nongovernment primary schools with low,
medium or high family incomes, 2006
Low (lt 1000/wk) Medium
(1000-1699/wk) High (gt1700/wk)
18
Percentage of students government, Catholic and
other nongovernment secondary schools with low,
medium or high family incomes, 2006
Low (lt 1000/wk) Medium
(1000-1699/wk) High (gt1700/wk)
19
Indigenous secondary students

• 84 of all Indigenous secondary students attend
  government schools.
• While 89 of LOW income Indigenous secondary
  students attend government schools, only 69 of
  HIGH income Indigenous secondary students attend
  government schools.
• In contrast, while only 10 of all Indigenous
  secondary students attend Catholic schools, 20
  of HIGH income Indigenous secondary students
  attend Catholic schools.
• Similarly, while only 6 of all Indigenous
  secondary students attend other nongovernment
  schools, 10 of HIGH income Indigenous secondary
  students attend other nongovernment schools.
• (Pattern is similar at the primary level.)

20
Percentage of Indigenous students in government,
Catholic and other nongovernment secondary
schools with low, medium or high family incomes,
2006
Low (lt 1000/wk) Medium
(1000-1699/wk) High (gt1700/wk)
21
The new noblesse oblige
22
John Ralston Saul on noblesse oblige
citizenship

• You can usually tell when the concepts of
  democracy and citizenship are weakening. There
  is an increase in the role of charity and in the
  worship of volunteerism. These represent the
  élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige
  that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or
  oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.

23
George William Russell on noblesse oblige

• Despotisms endure while they are benevolent,
  and aristocracies while noblesse oblige is not a
  phrase to be referred to with a cynical smile.

24

• Having benefited from the residualisation of the
  public sector, nongovernment schools are now
  lauded for displaying their nobility and being
  charitable to the disadvantaged government
  sector, or to disadvantaged (but deserving)
  individuals and communities.
• Some governments, whose policies have been a
  primary cause of the residualisation of the
  public sector, are now promoting (if not
  intentionally) such noblesse oblige by the
  nongovernment sector.

25

• Many of the initiatives have some positive
  aspects (otherwise they would not have the
  support they have . . . .).
• However, to a greater or lesser degree, they
• reinforce the belief in the superiority of the
  nongovernment sector relative to the government
  sector
• may directly damage government (or other
  nongovernment) schools, while disguising that
  damage.

26

• In the too hard basket are
• the inequities of public funding of nongovernment
  schools
• the consequences of unplanned expansion (and lack
  of not taking a share of the effects of enrolment
  fluctuations, especially those resulting from
  changes in school starting age)
• the need to limit fees
• the exclusion/expulsion of difficult students by
  nongovernment schools
• creaming and unreasonable selectiveness by
  nongovernment schools.
• What seem easy and attractive are initiatives
  that appear to promote harmony between sectors,
  and benefit particular disadvantaged
  individuals and communities while maintaining the
  core nature of schools sectors.

27
New noblesse oblige initiatives1.
Partnerships between government and
nongovernment schools

• The Age, 14 April 2008 - Professor Brian
  Caldwell says the Victorian Blueprint proposals
  could have been more innovative
• . . . Why not encourage outstanding
  non-government schools to form partnerships with
  struggling government schools since both receive
  government funding?
• Partnerships between schools can be great, but
  why assume that nongovernment schools are
  outstanding, and government schools
  struggling? What is the subliminal message to
  Age readers (and everyone who repeatedly hears
  such proposals)? What is the message to
  prospective and current government and
  nongovernment school students and their families,
  and teachers in the respective sectors?

28

• The Rudd governments Local Schools Working
  Together initiative must be implemented so that
  the public benefit is maximised public
  education not residualised.

29
New noblesse oblige initiatives2. Scholarships
for disadvantaged students

• Nongovernment schools have always provided
  scholarships to students who might not have
  otherwise attended the school and have high
  academic (or musical etc) ability or
  achievements.
• This might benefit the individual student (but
  not always)
• The schools public standing and market position
  significantly benefits from the students
  achievements because of the appearance that the
  school provides an excellent academic (or musical
  education), when the good academic (or musical)
  outcomes are largely just a consequence of the
  initial selection of students.
• Creaming such students damages the schools (and
  their students) that the academic or musically
  high achieving scholarship recipients would have
  otherwise attended.
• the same goes for some selective or specialist
  government schools
• its an old argument, but worth repeating

30

• While some programs of scholarships for
  Indigenous students may be positive, and
  certainly are well-intentioned, negative outcomes
  for other schools and communities may outweigh
  net benefits to individuals receiving the
  scholarships.
• Foundation, corporate or government funding for
  such programs must carefully evaluate the
  externalities as well as direct benefits (as well
  as costs) to individuals.
• The family incomes of Indigenous students in the
  different sectors noted earlier are relevant here
  how much are some nongovernment schools getting
  kudos for Indigenous student participation when
  they are just selecting middle and high SES (easy
  to teach, not difficult) Indigenous students?

31
A significant test . . .Responding to the
consequences of changes in school starting age

• How have the nongovernment sectors, and
  individual nongovernment schools, responded to
  sharp enrolment fluctuations such as those
  arising from changes in school starting age?
• The evidence so far indicates that they have
  taken advantage of such fluctuations, leaving the
  government sector to bear the brunt of
  disruption, and ratcheting up their advantages.
• If nongovernment schools cannot accept an
  equitable burden in such clear cut cases, how can
  we expect local schools working together and
  similar initiatives to automatically operate
  equitably?

32

• Lets look at what happened, and may happen, in
  Tasmania and Western Australia

33
The impact of a change of school starting age in
Tasmania

• In Tasmania a two-third size cohort moved
  through schools following a change in school
  starting age in the early 1990s.
• The government sector bore almost the full brunt
  of the reduced enrolments.
• For example, at year 8, between 1999 and 2000
• Government sector enrolments fell by 920 (19)
• Enrolments in all schools fell by 955 (14)
• Nongovernment sector enrolments fell by 35 (less
  than 2)
• The Government sector only partially recovered
  enrolment share, dropping from 73 at year 8 in
  the years before the reduced size cohort passed
  through to less than 71 in the years after.

34
The impact of change of school starting
ageTasmanian government sector year 8 enrolment
numbers and share of all year 8 enrolments, 1997
to 2003
35

• If the effect was shared equitably, enrolment
  share (the blue line) would have been flat.
• It was far from flat

36
The impact of change in school starting age in
Western Australia

• In WA a two-third size cohort is moving through
  primary schools following a change in school
  starting age.
• In 2003 WA government sector year 2 enrolments
  were 74 of all year 2 enrolments.
• The government sector then experienced 81 of the
  enrolment loss in year 2 between 2003 and 2004
  (dropping to an enrolment share of 69).
• The government sector then experienced only 79
  of the enrolment recovery in year 2 between 2004
  and 2005 (leaving a 2005 enrolment share of 73).

37
The impact of change of school starting ageWA
government sector year 2 enrolment numbers and
share of all year 2 enrolments, 2002 to 2006
38

• Again, if the effect was shared equitably,
  enrolment share (the blue line) would have been
  flat.
• It was far from flat

39
A test to come

• The reduced size cohort is due to enter WA
  secondary schools (year 8) in 2010.
• Total year 8 enrolments in the state are
  projected by DEEWR to reduce by 35 from 30,164
  in 2009 to 19,564 in 2010.
• Such a reduction can be very disruptive.
• What will be the impacts on the different sectors?

40
Scenario 1 Enrolment reduction is shared equally
41
Scenario 2 Nongovernment sector maintains
numbers
42

• The impact is most likely to be quite uneven over
  the state.
• But those government schools already in
  competition with nongovernment schools with long
  waiting lists and effective marketing will most
  probably be seriously affected unless action is
  taken.
• What about changes throughout Australia if
  governments accept MCEETYA proposals to implement
  a nationally consistent school starting age?

43
Where to now? Julia Gillard has said, it is
time for all of us to recognise that the
old-style education debates need to be updated.

• But updated to what?
• We need to appreciate reality, and not retreat to
  the comfort of denials sloppy thinking such as
  nongovernment schools are really public schools
  because they receive so much public money, and
  there is no difference any more between the
  sectors.
• Remember Frank Tate
• those who reject full state secondary schooling
  do so because they regard such an extension as
  an attack upon their own class interest and
  privileges
• And former education minister, John Carrick
• government supported public education exists in
  order that poor people may obtain an education.
• Importantly, the most significant developments
  are not intentional, but are largely the
  unintended consequences of
• well-meaning government policies
• the aggregation of the decisions of tens of
  thousands of families acting in their own
  interests
• individual schools getting on with serving their
  own school communities.

44

• We need to work to counter those unintended
  consequences as well as address the overt
  problems of clearly bad policies and practices.
• We must understand macro level dynamics, and not
  be seduced by the micro of good intentions and
  nice people.
• We should not succumb to accepting the new
  noblesse oblige.

45
References notes

• Commonwealth Schools Commission Panel of
  Commissioners 1985, Planning and Funding Policies
  for New Non-Government Schools, Commonwealth
  Schools Commission, Canberra.
• Interim Committee for the Australian Schools
  Commission (Karmel Committee) 1973, Schools in
  Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
• Quotes and information about Frank Tate from RJW
  Selleck 1982, Frank Tate A Biography, Melbourne
  University Press, Melbourne.
• School student background data from Barbara
  Preston 2007, The social make-up of schools
  Family income, religion, Indigenous status, and
  family type in government, Catholic and other
  nongovernment schools, Australian Education
  Union, Melbourne, http//www.aeufederal.org.au/Pub
  lications/Bprestonrep2007.pdf
• Student enrolment data from Australian Bureau of
  Statistics, various publications, most recently
  Schools Australia, Cat. No. 4221.0.
• Exact references for the John Ralston Saul
  George William Russell quotations are not known.
  If you can help, please contact me.
• Barbara Preston 02 6247 8919
  barbara.preston_at_netspeed.com.au