11.1 The Committee was asked to provide advice on the student groups in greatest need of specific forms of assistance. Against the background of Chapter 3 which describes the development in schooling over recent decades, this chapter describes the needs of, and current provisions for, special groups. The Committee's views on future pOlicies for special groups are set out in Chapter 12.
11.2 The identification of groups most in need of specific forms of assistance involves close examination of educational outcomes and the social and cultural factors which impinge upon students' ability to benefit from schooling. It also involves the formulation of conclusions about the efficacy of measures taken within schooling to ameliorate the effects of these factors. The Committee has adopted as a framework the categorisation of student groups with special needs used by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. It has concerned itself with the possible needs of, and priorities among, the groups in the following list. The Committee believes that all important categories are encompassed by this list but recognises that the groups are neither homogeneous nor mutually exclusive:
• students of low socia-economic background;
• students of non-English speaking background;
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students;
• geographically isolated students;
• physically and intellectually handicapped students;
• gifted and talented students; and
• potential early school leavers.
The particular aspect of girls' education on which the Committee was asked to advise has been discussed in Chapters 6 and 10. In the following discussion of special groups it is assumed that it is already accepted that girls within these groups are doubly dis- advantaged.
II .3 While attention has been drawn wherever possible to the range of current Commonwealth provisions, there has been no detailed examination of allowances paid to or for individuals or of programs whose administration lies outside the education portfolio.
STUDENTS OF LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
II A In Schools in Australia, the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission discussed at some length the ways in which low socio-economic status was associated with poor educational attainment. It found higher drop out rates and lower average levels of educational attainment in schools serving areas of relative poverty (I). It recommended the provision of supplementary recurrent and buildings grants to improve the quality of educational services and of life in schools identified as being disadvantaged 133
on the basis of the socio-economic characteristics of the neighbourhoods from which they drew their students.
11.5 The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in 1982 reviewed the educational and employment opportunities for young people (2). As part of this study, analysis of research findings on the factors affecting progression from school to higher education and to technical and further education showed that factors such as Year 12 results, parental encouragement, high socia-economic family status, knowledge of occupational and financial rewards of further study, and attendance at a non-Catholic non-government school, were associated with progression to higher education. It led to the conclusion that:
much of the social sorting process which leads to the social bias. . . in higher education takes place within secondary schooling . . . (3)
From its analysis of the data from the Australian Council for Educational Research's Study of Youth in Transition (4), the Tertiary Education Commission concluded, inter alia:
• even by age 14, there is a strong and positive relationship between socia-economic status (as measured by father'S occupation) and measured levels of school achievement. Some 40 per cent of high-SES students were placed in the highest achievement quartile on the ACER tests of 1975, for example, compared with only 18 per cent of students from low-SES backgrounds;
• persistence to the end of secondary education is also strongly associated with socia-economic background. Even with adjustment made for the relationship described above, a young person from a high-SES background is substantially more likely than other young people to proceed to Year 12. Considering only those studenis in the highest achievement quurtile, ihe /HujJufiiun jJer'8isiinf; iv Year' 12 ranged from 62 per cent for the low-SES group to 81 per cent for those from high- SES backgrounds. A similar variation is evident in other quartiles; and
• beyond the end of secondary school, progression to university educatio'n is once again heavily stratified along socio~economic lines, even when allowance is made for both of the relationships described above. For the total ACER sample, a student from a high-SES background was three times more likely than his low-SES peer to
have undertaken university study by age 19. (5)
11.6 Among 10 year olds who participated in the Australian Council for Educational Research's 1975 survey of literacy and numeracy, the findings were similar. There was a clear association between mastery of literacy and numeracy and socio-economic status, as measured by a composite of father's education and occupation and mother's education.
11.7 A commitment to more equal group outcomes is a commitment to redress a situation in which a large group of school students is limited in its access to the social and economic rewards of schooling by the nature of its own social and economic circum- stances. The challenge lies in selecting the measures through which such a commitment is given practical expression.
11.8 To some extent, low educational achievement has its roots in poverty. Poverty tends to exclude those affected by it from customary living patterns because of their inadequate command of resources. At its extreme, it is characterised by poor diet, poor health, insecurity of income, poor housing, unemployment, lack of savings, low self
esteem, lack of knowledge of social rights and suspicion of authority. These interact to produce a social environment in which the goals, values and customs of the school may have little force. Factors such as poor diet and health, poor housing, low income and low family educational attainment may severely limit students' ability to cope with the school environment and the school's expectations of students.
11.9 Even where students of low socio-economic background are not living in poverty, the school itself may be influential in limiting participation. The school curriculum - what is taught, how it is taught, how schools are organised and the overt and covert signals about acceptable values - is a powerful screening device.
Present Commonwealth Programs
11.10 The Commonwealth operates two major programs designed directly to ameliorate socia-economic disadvantage. The Secondary Allowances Scheme adminis- tered by the Commonwealth Department of Education is an income tested scheme paying benefits to individuals to assist in the completion of Years II and 12. In 1984 there were 61 495 students, or nearly one in four of total enrolments in Years II and 12, assisted under the Scheme (preliminary figures) and total expenditure was $54.7 million (current prices).
11.11 The Disadvantaged Schools Program, administered by the Schools Com- mission, arose from the recommendations of the Interim Committee (6). A third small program, the Children in Residential Institutions Program, has a focus on socially deprived children living in a non-family setting.
11.12 Disadvantaged Schools Program In recommending supplementary grants for disadvantaged schools the Interim Committee set three objectives. The first related to equality of opportunity, emphasising the reduction of differences in the educational performance of socially disadvantaged children and the rest of the school population over the traditional gamut of schooling, defined in tenns of the intellectual, practical and expressive arts. The second related to ensuring that the ten years or more of life that students devote to school be spent in congenial surroundings, in a satisfying community and in a program of meaningful and relevant activities. The third was a more general objective, expressed as a hope that through successful interaction schools would become less alienated from their communities.
11.13 The Disadvantaged Schools Program has an allocation of nearly $36 million for 1985, funds being available for recurrent expenditure and minor works. Participant schools are those which have been declared disadvantaged on the basis of the nature of the community they serve, not because of the level of resources they command. State Ministers of Education determine which government schools will be declared and advise the Commonwealth Minister of any changes to the list of eligible schools. The Commonwealth Minister declares non-government schools, after recommendations from agencies located in the States - system authorities, State Disadvantaged Schools Program Committees and the Commission's Planning and Finance Committees. For the Northern Territory, schools are declared following advice from the Northern Territory Schools Commission Programs Committee. The Commission has asked that once declared, schools remain in the Program for at least three years, in recognition of the time
135
required to achieve Program objectives. Education authorities in the States also provide substantial funds from their own resources. For example, in New South Wales the differential staffing formula introduced to provide additional resources in disadvantaged schools is estimated to cost in excess of $9 million (current prices) in 1985. Further support is available at central, regional and school level at an estimated cost of over $1 million (current prices).
11.14 Funds are distributed among government and non-government school systems according to a formula based on an index of disadvantage derived from national census data. Enrolment ceilings for the Program are set by the Commission in each State and sector. The current national ceiling is a little over 420 000 students, that is about 14 per cent of all enrolments. The enrolment ceiling is set to concentrate resources in particular schools, in line with the Interim committee's and later the Commission's belief that this concentration aids in the achievement of the Program's objectives (7). The funds available under the Program represent, at the national level, approximately $85 per student in disadvantaged schools. However, funds are allocated to schools for specific projects submitted for funding, and not on a per capita basis.
11.15 The index of disadvantage currently used by the Commission in resource allocation decisions was derived from 1976 census data, using 32 variables shown to discriminate between Census Collection Districts in terms of concentrations of dis- advantage. The variables relate to occupation of the male and female work force, educational qualifications, family structure, housing and services, ethnicity and income (8).
11.16 Most school authorities have developed their own indicators to derive their recommendations on schools to be declared, although three relatively small systems - the government systems in the Territories and the non-government system in Queensland - assess degrees of school disadvantage through the personal knowledge of system personnel. Where indicators have been developed, the variables used are broadly similar to those used nationally. Most use family occupational status, community socio-economic status, migrancy, Aboriginal students and single parent family variables. Added variables include such things as isolation, unemployment, retention rates, achievement test scores, pensioners and student turnover. There is some question as to whether lack of uniformity in selection devices is appropriate in a nationally targetted program but the Interim Committee acknowledged that local knowledge would be important in the actual selection of schools and the Schools Commission has maintained this principle.
1I.l7 During 1984, the Commission arranged for an independent review of the Program, to evaluate and report on its operation and to recommend future directions.
Among other things, the review was to provide:
a general assessment of changes in the quality of schooling which can be attributed to the operation of the Disadvantaged Schools Program (including those qualities identified by the Karmel Committee - basic skills, enjoyable and fruitful schooling, relevant curricula and staff and community involvement). (9)
11.18 The review (10) drew upon previously published reviews and studies and consulted extensively with people and organisations involved in the Program throughout Australia. It presented a picture of a successful program. Fundamental skills, whether defined broadly as school attainment or as language, number and social skills, were seen
to have improved. The Program was seen to have brought about substantial real gains, particularly in primary schools, in the development of self confidence and self esteem.
Tangible measures of more enjoyable and fruitful schooling were reduced playground violence and vandalism as well as improved attendance. The number of parents involved in the Program was reported to be small although it was claimed that parents in disadvantaged communities have a better understanding of schooling as a result of the Program. Alienation, unemployment, a diversity of languages and cultures, a high proportion of single parent families and insufficient financial resources are real deterrents to active participation in school affairs.
11.19 The review identified two factors as having been fundamental to the Program's success: school based program development and selectivity in choice of projects for funding. The former requires the analysis of the school's existing program and the community's strengths and needs, and the development of strategies to meet those needs.
This was seen to be valued by those associated with the Program more than any other element. In the administration of the Program, emphasis is placed on funding only those projects which set out an analysis of needs, a rationale for action and proposed action in the light of the Program's objectives. This emphasis is reported to have ensured the allocation of resources to projects most likely to succeed. The review also identified improvements in teaching practice, including a better understanding of planning, continuity and sequence and of the need for specific objectives, as well as improvements in teacher morale and motivation.
11.20 While highlighting the Program's success, the review was not unreserved in its praise. Several aspects drew critical comment and proposals for change. Some schools were reported to show a concern with process at the expense of the pursuit of specific objectives. Gender, Aboriginality and non-English speaking background were seen as factors needing particular attention. Other concerns related to the identification of disadvantaged schools, accountability requirements, the lack of national leadership, community participation, overlap among specific purpose programs and the paucity of funds in the face of the level of relative poverty in Australia.
11.21 Children in Residential Institutions Program This Program is included here because it is concerned with social deprivation, that of children living in welfare institutions and remand homes. It does not necessarily focus on children with intellectual or physical handicaps or on children of low socio-economic background.
II. 22 The Program was introduced in 1977 following recognition by the Schools Commission (11) of the inadequate, and in some cases non-existent, educational services provided for children living in welfare institutions and remand homes. The 1985 administrative guidelines set out the aims of the Program as being:
• To provide educational and related services for institutionalised children, leading to more satisfactory levels of school achievement.
• To bring the life experiences of institutionalised children closer to those of children living in family surroundings.
• To provide special opportunities of a social, recreational and educational nature for such children which can help to compensate for some of their handicaps.
• To maximise the potential of such children to lead normal lives when they leave the institution. (12)
137
Large traditional institutions (whether schools exist within them or not) as well as small family group homes come within the scope of the Program; while foster homes, hostels, boarding schools and women's refuges are excluded. Apart from a small increase in 1979 to cater for the provision of services in residences which had not existed in 1977, funding under the program has remained constant in real terms. In 1985 a little over $2 million is being provided.
II. 23 A review of the Program in 1984 (13) noted that it represented a shift from providing educational services for children within schools to educational support for a group of disadvantaged students outside schools. It also involved a range of government departments as well as a number of voluntary agencies.
11.24 The conclusion of the review was that the Program was delivering much needed and valuable support to a group of children at severe educational and social risk. It was also enabling many residential staff to deliver child care services with better range and depth of coverage. Given the funds available, the Program had a significant impact on those children and staff in participating residences. The impact on children had been greatest in the area of normalisation of life experiences and least in the enhancement of school experiences, although the latter was the prime area of need targetted by the Program. Impact on the potential for independent living was also comparatively low. In this context it was suggested that projects aimed at improving children's school performance and their potential for independent living could be given greater priority in some States.
11.25 The review commented that while the lists of residences held by the Commission were in general accurate and up to date there was no single source of information on the number of children in residential care. It suggested that, because growing numbers of children and residences are being identified as falling within the Program guidelines, it might become necessary for the Commission to define priorities among participating residences. The review stressed that above all the Program should remain responsive to changes in patterns of residential care alild changes in the needs of children requiring residential alternatives.
STUDENTS OF NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND
11.26 Within this broad category there is a wide range of educational need. At one end of the scale some students require substantial assistance because they speak no English; at the other are those who are proficient English writers, readers and speakers.
The problems of identifying non-English speaking background students most in need of assistance, assessing the extent of their need and of defining categories of students to whom special assistance should be directed are of long standing. These issues have been addressed by several Commonwealth Departments, by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, the Commonwealth Schools Commission and State government authorities (14). Recently, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts examined the teaching of English as a Second Language in the context of its enquiry on national language policy (15). It found no adequate indicator of the extent of the need for instruction in English as a second language but drew attention to the Schools
138
Commission's study to identify the factors affecting the development of English competence.
11.27 This study set up by the Commission (16) arose from the Commonwealth's acceptance in 1982 of a recommendation in the report of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs on its evaluation of post-arrival programs and services for migrants (17). It was designed to identify the factors which affect the development of English language competence and to develop an index which could be used by the Commonwealth to allocate funds for language instruction among students of non-English speaking background. The study concluded that the best single indicator of need for assistance is proficiency level in English, but level of schooling, scholastic ability, literacy in the mother tongue and refugee status are other significant factors. It proposed a weighted index of need which would require assessment of the proficiency in English of individual students and could be used to allocate Commonwealth funds (18).
11.28 The study identified four levels of proficiency in English, ranging from nil or minimal to advanced, and five categories of students, defined in terms of their level of proficiency in English, level of schooling, scholastic ability, literacy in the mother tongue and refugee status. It proposed that the heaviest weighting within any index be given to students with minimal or no proficiency in English and one or more of the following characteristics: slow learning; refugee; above eight years of age and illiterate or semi- literate in their mother tongue; or in the last two years of primary schooling or in secondary schooling.
11.29 The immigration program brings to Australia each year a sizable number of students who have minimal or no proficiency in English on their arrival. Their need for intensive instruction in the English language is immediate and obvious. Without access to English they are deprived of acceSS to education and to an alien culture. Within the group there are those whose pressing needs extend beyond English language instruction because they are illiterate in their mother tongue. These tend to be young people with refugee status who have received no schooling in their homeland or whose schooling has been seriously interrupted. These students face almost insurmountable obstacles in surviving let alone in operating as effective members of society. The plight of those in the older age groups - about 14 to 17 years of age or older - who have received little or no schooling, have spent several years in refugee camps and have arrived in Australia without family or friends is extreme. Many of the groups consulted by the Committee or making representations to it attached very high priority to this group of students and to measures which they saw as necessary for the group to be able to cope with living in Australia.
These included not only the development of literacy and numeracy but also induction to the culture, and psychological and financial support.
11.30 Low levels of proficiency in English among students of non-English speaking background are not confined to recent arrivals. Factors such as scholastic ability. degree of literacy in the mother tongue and age at which English is introduced affect students who were born in Australia or have had long residence. The need for special assistance extends therefore beyond the newly arrived group. It may also extend to students who can use English effectively but who experience difficulty with language that is subject specific or abstract. Such students may be less able to participate in education than native speakers of similar intellectual capacity.
139