Now more than ever, Australia's education system is acting as a kind of 'sorting out' mechanism, allocating people to certain stations within society and determining one's access to society's resources (Jamrozik, 2009). This process within Australia takes upon various forms such as, the division between public and private schools, systems of streaming within schools and the determination of the dominant hegemony within society (Jamrozik, 2009).Within this paper the issues of educational policy and social inequality in Australia will be examined in relation to the four lenses; that of Historical, Cultural, Structural and the Critical sociological imagination. HistoricalWhen considering the historical lens of the sociological imagination we pay attention to both continuity and change (Georgeou, 2010). In relation to education, Australia's change from a welfare state to a post-welfare state and key points in our educational history that have impacted on the country's social inequalities.Australia has moved from a welfare state to that of a post-welfare state (Jamrozik, 2009).
The welfare state was built upon the acceptance of responsibilities of all citizens as a matter of deliberate policy, committed to pursuing equality. On the contrary, the post-welfare state supported and encouraged inequality as natural and desirable to achieve a higher productivity and efficiency within the society (Jamrozik, 2009). Therefore, benefits such as income support, emergency relief or access to care services no longer exist as a right but as a criteria of who is the deserving or undeserving.Having such selective criteria in place, the post-welfare state has become particularly negative towards the poor. The alterations of state within Australia have experienced major changes to social and economic policies, which has had an overwhelming impact on Australia’s education system and inequality.
Over the last two decades social and economic policies within Australia have undergone some radical changes. Historically education was viewed as a right (Hall, 2010). Jamrozik (2009) concurs with this belief suggesting that 'In a democratic society, access to education is taken for granted as a citizen's birthright.Meaning that individuals were supplied with a adequate foundation of knowledge and understanding, implicating that if inequality was to arise individuals were able to exercise some kind of choice within society. This view is central to specific changes in the history of Australia's society to educational policy. The first major change was that seen in 1972 where the government accepted full responsibility for tertiary education, that is where every individual within Australia's society received free tertiary education (Jamrozik, 2009).
Another step of significance is that of the federal government taking partial responsibility for private education. However they lowered assistance to public schools, where the notion of a two-tiered education system became more formalised (Jamrozik, 2009). Another change in educational policy was implemented in 1989 where partial tuition fees were reintroduced for tertiary education under the governments Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), students given the option of either paying upfront or delaying payment to after finding secure employment (Jamrozik, 2009).These changes in policy suggest that the government is increasingly coming to view education as a financial burden within our society, suggesting education is a commodity that can be bought. Regardless of the financial costs of education, statistics show in the years from 1983 to 1996 numbers of students in tertiary education doubled and retention rates within secondary schooling reached new heights, rising from 40.
6% in 1983 to 71. 3% in 1996 (Jamrozik, 2009), clearly placing education as a high value within the Australian society and becoming a lifetime pursuit for many people.However historically, the changes that have occurred over the years, have reinforced Australia’s problem with social inequalities within the education system. CulturalWhen considering the cultural lens of the sociological imagination we pay attention to cultural differences and diversity (Georgeou, 2010). In relation education we look again at the historical view of education as a right and the term considered cultural capital, which has had a strong impact on the social inequalities within education.Historically and Culturally within Australia, education has been viewed as a right, as previously discussed.
Although Australia perpetrates the myth of an egalitarian society, it has been cultivated to conceal the unequal life chances of disadvantaged individuals (Jamrozik, 2009). This is central to the political and cultural differences/conflicts and the bases of knowledge in which our education system is being built upon. Within schools certain students are being labelled as 'deficit' that is 'the poor, the wilful, the disabled, the non-English speaking, the slow, the bottom 10%' (Comber & Kamler, 2004).Despite years of research, poor or culturally disadvantaged children are more likely to fall into the lower levels of performance across all subject areas (Comber & Kamler, 2004).
These are what we understand as deficit discourses where victim blaming is directed at the teacher, the child and their family (Comber & Kamler, 2004). Teachers and schools need to move outside this deficit discourse in order for society to move ahead and move past these political and cultural differences. In saying this, these discourses are still dominant in our classrooms and staffrooms.This argument coincides with that of cultural capital, which is discussed further in this section. Pierre Bourdieu (1998; as cited in Mills, 2008) writes extensively about the role that schools play in reproducing social and cultural inequalities.
He argues that the educational system takes on the culture of the dominant group, that is the group that controls economic, social and political resources, which is then embedded within our education system (Mills, 2008). Therefore schools are ensuring the profitability of the cultural capital of the dominant culture.Educational differences are often misrecognised as an 'individual’s gift' rather than class based differences (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1979; as cited in Mills, 2008). This refers to a way of thinking and disposition to life where there are 'expected behaviours, expected language competencies, the explicit and implicit values, knowledge, attitudes to and relationship with academic culture required for success in school are all competencies which one class brings with them to schools' (Henry et al. 1988; as cited in Mills, 2008).Australian education assumes that of middle class culture and any other background or class is apparently liable to the dominant culture (Henry et al, 1988; as cited in Mills, 2008), where culturally diverse students are expected to learn in our culture (English) whilst learning how to control it.
From this, it is evident that those children that have a cultural background do not have the efficient amount of support from our education system. Furthermore, these children will not have sufficient skills in functioning efficiently within our society.From this it is clearly visible that Australia’s education system is not equal within our society. StructuralWhen considering the structural lens of the sociological imagination we pay attention to structure forces and institutions (Georgeou, 2010).
That is looking at larger educational structures such as the Federal and State governments and the role they play within the debate of public and private systems. We also look at the effect streaming has within the educational system and inequality.Educational policy in Australia has shown a shift towards school education as a two-tier system (Hall, 2010). This trend is increasingly demonstrated in the widening gap between public and private schools (Jamrozik, 2009), which is seemingly hard to understand as Australia has cultivated an image of an egalitarian society. Since 1996 when the government decreased their support for tertiary education and increased support for schools, the government’s assistance to private schools has continued to increase.The government contributed 40% of schools running costs in 1974 to private schools in contrast to 1996 where 74% of school running costs were contributed (Jamrozik, 2009).
This allocation of more public funds to the private sector is making the attractiveness of these schools grow. However from an educational policy perspective the effect of reducing funds on tertiary education and increasing support for private schools is clearly increasing the inequality to access education and further reinforce the two-tier education system.Jamrozik (2009) describes this division not between 'different but equal' but as 'different and superior/inferior,' where, private schools have the legal capacity to be exclusive of who attends their school where public schools have to be inclusive of all students. Private schools have the capacity to control both student intake and their value system where public schools must accept all who are entitled to enrol and must maintain a political neutrality across their value system (Jamrozik, 2009).
This corresponds to the view of Marx, that of state of control, where education is used by the state to reproduce class inequalities within our society (Georgeou, 2011). Private schools are viewed by many as providing a higher quality education and better socialisation and control of the students. Private systems cultivate what seems to be 'elitist values' meaning more affluent parents tend to enrol their children within them (Marginson, 1993; as cited in Jamrozik, 2009).As parents choose to send their children to private schools, the public school system is becoming the lower tier of the two-tier system. This growth of private school education and the imbalance of numbers of students from private schools entering tertiary education in comparison to public schools is leading to an increasing in class division amongst the Australian society (Jamrozik, 2009). Furthermore within the Structural lens we can discuss the term streaming, referring to grouping students according to perceived ability (Zevenbergen, 2005).
This widespread adoption of streaming is in spite of the international research that demonstrates this practice does not enhance the learning of students but can hinder the learning, particularly for students in lower streams (Zevenbergen, 2005). More evidently Page (1998) suggests that the lower streamed students are receiving a somewhat reduced version of the curriculum, however regardless of the content covered, all students are given a common test, which then rectifies the inequalities of such practices.From this we can draw upon sociology theorist, Pierre Bourdieu (1998; as cited in Mills, 2008), where he views the practice of streaming as helping reproduce the status quo, which is detrimental to social justice. We can further this idea by looking at Antonio Gramsci's (1971) work on education, where he suggests that the school system is just one part of a system of dominant hegemony, where individuals are socialised into maintaining the status quo.
Gramsci (1971) did not write much on this, but what he did write was essentially a critique of the education system and a plea for a more inclusive form of education. He suggested not to create a system of different types of education but 'to create a single type of formative school which would take the child up to the threshold of his choice of job, forming him during this time as a person capable of thinking, studying and ruling - or controlling those who rule' Gramsci, 1971).There was no doubt in Gramsci's mind that education was one way in which class structure was maintained within society and in order for a transformation to occur, the education system will have to be changed dramatically. From examining the structural lens it is evident that the structure of the education system is perpetuating the social status and inequalities within schools, which then is mirrored within the broader Australian society.CriticalFrom examining the education system through a sociological imagination it is imperative we take a more critical view, that is we need to become more reflexive about the social world we belong to (Georgeou, 2010). When considering education and the critical lens we need to look at who is benefitting from Australia’s current education system, who is responsible for this and what can we do to stop the education system in perpetuating social inequalities evident within our society.
In previous discussions it has been proposed that, the more affluent and middle class groups are benefitting from the current Australian education system where as disadvantaged and culturally diverse groups are suffering from inequalities in and outside the classroom. I believe there is only one body responsible for this and that is the government. The government has had a vital impact on the public and private debate, where they have rapidly increased funding for private schools and cut funding to a minimum for public schools (Jamrozik, 2009), suggesting that education is a commodity that can be bought.In doing this, the government perpetuates the idea of class inequalities within the Australian society. Furthermore the government has raised the issue of education wars. The issues of political and cultural differences within the education system have been criticised towards the public system.
The government believe the subjects they teach and the teaching and assessment strategies they use are having a negative effect within our society by providing left-wing views on history and on current issues in society (Jamrozik, 2009) rather than maintaining the traditional values.Instead of criticising they should be celebrating what we have achieved as a nation and recognise that all cultures within our society should be equally valued. It is well supported within literature that a way in which we can increase equality throughout schools is through the skills of teachers (Mills, 2008). The diversity within our classrooms is ever increasing as Australia's population begins to grow.
Strategies need to be fostered within our classrooms that work on the principle of inclusivity.Teachers and society need to overcome the barrier as seeing anyone who isn't part of the dominant culture as inferior. Instead we need to widen our visions and embrace cultural diversity within the classrooms instead of working against these cultural minorities. Thomson (2002) suggests that teachers need to work upon the idea that all children have 'virtual school bags' that are full, although only some children get the opportunity to make use of what's inside, therefore teachers need to work upon this within their classrooms.
Comber and Hill (2000; as cited in Mills, 2008) suggest schools can relate curricula to students worlds, making the classroom more inclusive by legitimating locally produced knowledge. Through examining the education system using the four lenses of the sociological imagination it is clearly identifiable that Australia is an unequal society. The notions of social inequalities within the educational system need to be disputed in order for Australia to reach its full potential. The idea of education as a right needs to be reintroduced across all social classes within our society.
