12.1 The Committee's task in relation to special student groups has been interpreted as requiring the identification of disadvantaged groups of students for whom the Commonwealth should make special provisions and of the specific measures which this assistance should entail. In Chapter 5 arguments were advanced for an increase in the educational attainments of all students. Groups of students in need of specific assistance will therefore be among those who currently do not attain desirable outcomes from successive levels of schooling and who could be comparatively disadvantaged by a general rise in overall attainment. The purposes of any special assistance from the Commonwealth to specific groups are seen to be the creation of more equal group outcomes from education and the assurance of a socially acceptable experience of school life for students, consistent with raising the educational attainment of the generality of students.
12.2 There are major bamers outside the domain of the intellect to the attainment, by a higher proportion of students, of the desirable outcomes of schooling. The existence of social and cultural factors which adversely affect students' capacity to gain the benefits of schooling lies at the heart of disadvantage and of policies to promote equality of opportunity in response to it. Although it is not universally accepted, there is a substantial body of literature from around the world which upholds this view. The underlying assumption (and it is an assumption) is that intellectual ability is evenly distributed among social groups. In an ideal world, therefore, any differences in individual educational outcomes which remain, after successful compensatory measures have been taken, would be attributable to intellectual differences.
12.3 Disadvantage in special groups is demonstrated by the extent to which individuals in the group fail to attain access to further education, employment, high status occupations and high incomes in broad conformity with the rest of the community. Within schools its earlier manifestation is most often poor educational performance.
SELECTION OF TARGETS
12.4 On the face of it, targetting special programs on individuals may seem likely to be effective and efficient, since it ensures that special measures are directed at those in greatest need of them. For example, the Campbell and McMeniman study (I) suggests that the only effective way of ensuring help for students of non-English speaking background in greatest need is to begin with the assessment of the proficiency in English of individual students. Targetting on individuals also ensures that it deals with all those with educational deficiencies without directing resources to those who do not manifest educational disadvantage.
161
12.5· Targetting effort on individuals who already demonstrate low educational attainment does not take account of the fact that it is desirable to provide assistance before the damage is done. The achievement of better overall outcomes thus requires the prior identification of those most at risk of poor perfonnance and making additional assistance available to them early as a preventive measure, rather than as a corrective one at a later stage.
12.6 The prediction of potential poor school performance involves examining the characteristics known to be associated with low educational attainment. Beyond intellectual ability and individual personality, they are group characteristics - low socia-economic status, ethnicity and geographic isolation - to name those more commonly identified.
12.7 Powerful educational arguments exist for programs to be delivered to groups rather than to individuals. A central issue is that of labelling or stigmatising and the negative consequences which this has on children's educational and social development.
The branding of a student as deficient in a particular dimension serves to overshadow the strengths the student may otherwise possess. It also tends to shift the blame for disadvantage to children rather than to their circumstances.
12.8 Targetting on individuals also fails to recognise the importance of group processes in education. Additional attention paid to all members of the group should stimulate those who are not obviously in need of special assistance, with the ultimate result of extending the horizons of the group as a whole, as well as improving the educational attainment of those most in need. This phenomenon has been reported by school systems which have operated special programs with a group focus (2).
12.9 An exciusive conceniratiull Ull imiividuals has other weakncsscs. Iildividual targetting based on narrowly defined educational achievement criteria concentrates too much on one aspect of educational disadvantage. It fails to take account of the multiple objectives of schooling. It may encourage excessive concentration within schools on one aspect, for example, reading. It may reward incompetent schools or teachers by attracting funds for poor student performance; and it may relieve the ordinary classroom teacher of responsibility for the labelled students.
12.10 In practice, individual targetting is administratively costly. In the United States, where federal programs of compensatory education were targetted on individuals, elaborate audit requirements developed. Most of the extra teachers provided were permitted to deal only with the disadvantaged individuals; these teachers could not contribute to the work of the school as a whole and the students had to be withdrawn from their normal classes to work with them.
Targetting on Schools
12.11 Once groups become the focus of special measures to overcome poor school performance, a decision is required on whether these provisions are to be made for members of particular groups within schools or for whole schools with high concentrations of groups shown to be educationally disadvantaged.
12.12 Unless members of the group are self identifying, for example, because of inability to speak English or because of a visible handicap, to target on groups within 162
schools is administratively difficult and may be invasive of privacy. To illustrate, the identification within a school of Aboriginal students or students of low socio-economic background must involve either identification by school authorities or the collection of personal or family data. Moreover, where a particular group within a particular school is small in size, the question arises as to why the school should not be able to cope with the needs of those students. Schools should be expected to deal with the normal range of intellectual and social variability in the community. Special assistance should be reserved for schools with a disproportionate share of disadvantaged groups.
12.13 The Committee favours targetting on schools with high concentrations of the groups in question. Such targetting encourages a response from the school as a whole to the range of factors seen to affect educational performance adversely. It should enhance the performance of all students within the selected schools. There are also advantages in focussing on whole schools because the school is the basic organisational unit. Any program is most likely to be effective in schools which function well. School authorities are more readily able to make adjustments in, say, school leadership or staffing patterns in a few schools which may have been selected for targetting than in all schools within a system.
12.14 Many of the specific purpose programs of the Commonwealth Schools Commission are targetted in this way. The whole school is the reference point in the Disadvantaged Schools Program, the emphasis is on schools in the Participation and Equity Program and the focus is on communities in the Country Areas Program.
12.15 While the whole school approach has much to commend it, there are still difficulties in identifying schools as targets and in designing specific measures to assist groups. In considering which schools to target, there is the problem of the exclusion of students whose needs may be equally great but who attend non-targetted schools: low socio-economic background is not confined to students who live in communities served by declared disadvantaged schools; potential early leavers are not necessarily poor; there are Aboriginal students for whom English is a second language with which they need assistance; some students live outside welfare and remand homes but suffer equal or more severe social deprivation than those who are catered for by the Children in Residential Institutions Program. As noted in paragraph 12.12, however, where a particular group is small it is easier for the school to cope with its needs without additional assistance.
12.16 Targetting on whole schools may also carry with it the notion that schools which are not targets for special assistance do not need to make provision for students who are disadvantaged. All schools have such students. They are required to cater for the total range of students enrolled in them.
12.17 A further challenge in the detennination of targets is coping with multiple membership. As noted in paragraph 6.34, females may be doubly disadvantaged. There is likely to be, for example, some correspondence of membership of groups identified as requiring assistance because of low proficiency in English as a second language, low socio-economic background, early school leaving potential, mental andlor physical disability and rurality. Several of the reports on reviews of programs discuss possible overlaps with other programs.
12.18 The largest single issue associated with positive discrimination in education is whether it is effective. Are schools able to redress imbalances arising from social and 163
economic background factors? Most proponents of intervention in schooling recognise that background factors are powerful influences and that schools have limited effects (3).
Some scholars have taken the view that what schools do makes little or no difference. The 1969 evaluation of the United States Head Start Program, a major compensatory program established in 1965 designed to lift the cognitive and affective development of poor children through intervention in their pre-school years, concluded that the effects were small (4). Subsequently a body of literature, carrying similar messages, accumulated, particularly in the United States.
12.19 These results need to be tempered by more recent research on Headstart and similar programs. Attention has now turned to the assessment of the long term effects of intervention in pre-schools and primary schools, based on the notion that such programs may not demonstrate results until the children involved have reached young adulthood. It is then that any differences in life chances will begin to show. Strong support for this notion comes from a longitudinal study of 123 black children in Ypsilanti, Michigan, from the time they entered pre-school at age 3 or 4 until they reached 15 (5). Under this project, which began in 1962, the children were selected on the criteria of low socio-economic status and low IQ. A unique feature of the study was the use of a carefully matched control group which did not receive the benefits afforded the experimental group.
The researchers claim significant differences between the two groups by age 15, the experimental group having higher school achievement, greater commitment to schooling, fewer years spent receiving special education services, greater satisfaction with schooling and aspirations for the children on the part of their parents, decreased deviant behaviour and higher rates of employment (part-time). A continuation of the study, to the stage where the groups reached 19 years, was released late in 1984 (6). It confirmed the trends itie.ntified earlier.
12.20 Also in 1984, a study of the accumulated statistics of the United States National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that, between 1970 and 1982, educational performance improved in those curriculum areas, among those groups of students, in those schools and at the levels of schooling and in the regions of the United States that had been targetted for federal funding (7).
12.21 Moreover, a comprehensive study of secondary schools in the United Kingdom concluded that secondary schools do have an important influence on student attainment and behaviour (8). Differences among schools in student behaviour, attendance, examination success and delinquency were shown to exist after taking account of differences in background factors among their student intakes.
12.22 In Australia, compensatory educational programs have had a relatively short history. There is nevertheless encouraging, though limited, evidence of improvements in educational attainment within declared disadvantaged schools. A study of the school performance of students in these schools in South Australia over the period 1974 to 1981 showed that there were major improvements in students' confidence and reading attainment (9).
12.23 The Committee is wary of drawing conclusions from such a slender base.
Nonetheless, it would seem from the above studies that positive outcomes from compensatory programs addressing deep seated educational disadvantage depend on the sustained application of additional resources. Further, irrespective of the length of time 164
- - - ---- - - -
for which additional resources are provided, it is only in the long term that the effectiveness of a compensatory education program can be judged in terms of group outcomes or in tenns of levels of literacy and numeracy. On these grounds it may be some years before the full effects of the Disadvantaged Schools Program become evident.
12.24 The Committee has confidence in the power of schools to have positive effects on the life chances of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. In addition, the Interim Committee's objective of ensuring that children live their 10 to 13 years in school in congenial surroundings and in purposeful and satisfying activities has even more relevance in 1985 than in 1973 in the face of substantial youth unemployment.
GENERAL OR SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
12.25 State governments have the responsibility of ensuring that there are education services to cater for all students, that is, for the full range of intellectual ability and social background. The schools which they conduct, or permit non-government school authorities to conduct, are responsible for providing adequate learning experiences for their students. The identification by the Commonwealth of specific groups of students for whom it makes provision implies that these school authorities are not catering adequately for them. This may occur either because their special needs are not recognized or given a high priority or because the capacity of school authorities to respond to their needs is limited.
12.26 The boundary between the need for special treatment and satisfaction of needs through normal provisions has particular relevance from a Commonwealth perspective. The statements of educational goals discussed in Chapter 5 are inclusive of all children. Most refer to the meeting of individual needs or the recognition of individual differences, following the principle that schools should cater for all as part of their normal operations.
12.27 Nowadays all schools have a range of students with diverse educational needs and there is a considerable measure of agreement about the existence of students for whom the general provisions are not enough to ensure the attainment of desirable outcomes.
There is broad consensus that there are schools that have a disproportionate share of disadvantaged students and that special assistance should be provided to these schools.
There are also students whose intellects are so impaired as to preclude acquisition of the knowledge and skills which are basic to competence; at the other end of the continuum, there are students of outstanding intellect who may not be sufficiently challenged, through general provisions, to realise their full potential. The Commonwealth has, over the last decade, responded to this range of need with specific purpose programs.
12.28 The greater recognition of special needs does, however, carry with it the danger that expectations about what can be catered for within regular provision are narrowed. The reported failure of mainstream teachers to accept responsibility for the development of English language proficiency among students of non-English speaking background is one manifestation of this phenomenon. The slowness with which notions of multicultural education have been adopted by schools with few, if any, students of non-
165
English speaking background is another. The creation of a wide range of special programs may tend to accentuate the shrinkage of expectations about Donnal provisions and their outcomes. The reviews of specific purpose programs discussed in the previous chapter discerned signs of this process. The Committee is inclined to support a reduction in the number of specific purpose programs and believes that there needs to be a greater recognition by education authorities of the responsibilities of the ordinary school for the wide range of student abilities and backgrounds that is now normal in Australia.
DELIVERY OF COMMONWEALTH PROGRAMS
12.29 The concept of equality of opportunity and the objective of more equal group outcomes are now commonplace in the educational philosophies of Australian education systems. The question therefore arises as to the level of responsibility, if any, the Commonwealth should accept for the support of programs directed at the alleviation of disadvantage. This is a recurring theme in a federal system where responsibility for the conduct of schools resides in the States. It is an issue which arises in relation to the development of strategies for all special groups identified as requiring specific assistance.
12.30 The reviews of individual programs have generally favoured their continuation or expansion, albeit with some modification. Fairly consistently they have also shown up difficulties in program delivery. Despite the variety of authors and review procedures there are SOme common themes. One of them is the desirability of the Schools Commission ~ s actively promoting, ieading and couniiuaiillg its P(Ogfl:ul"IS. Similarly, there is a perceived need for the Commission to act as a broker, clearing house or dissemination agency for good practice, new ideas or recent research. There is also direct criticism of the Commission for failing to allocate adequate staff to operate a number of the programs.
The Commission has been criticised for not providing direction or coordination in the Special Education Program, for not disseminating information about funded national multicultural education projects and for not maintaining stable and effective staffing in the Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Clarity of Purpose
12.31 Wherever special provlslOn is made, clarity of purpose is important.
Commonwealth assistance for special groups is a response to one of two situations: where there are obligations and where the Commonwealth has particular policy objectives. The Commonwealth has obligations in relation to immigrants and Aborigines. However, there is no clear line between any Commonwealth obligations to meet these speciaL educational needs and those of State governments to ensure that there are educational provisions for all students. Students whose needs arise from immigration policies provide an example. A migrancy related label may be a persuasive argument for Commonwealth assistance, but it does not, in a strict sense, oblige the Commonwealth, rather than the States and other education authorities, to assume total funding responsibility. In practice, many school authorities, as well as the Commonwealth, actively pursue policies to improve the education of these students and of Aboriginal students.
12.32 The second motivation for specific assistance is the pursuit of Common- wealth policy goals. There are two kinds of provision here: those which relate to long term goals and those which are set up with limited objectives. Of the former kind are those which address important principles such as equality of opportunity or the development of a multicultural society. Ideally, these should illuminate the practice of all schools and school systems. The second kind of provision is that which is made for a limited objective and is therefore terminal.
Setting Objectives
12.33 Some of the current Commonwealth programs exemplify the widespread practice of setting goals, aims Or purposes of such multiplicity and at such levels of generality as to defy the development of effective strategies for their pursuit. In such circumstances, the goals are not only usually unattainable but also there is no effective way of assessing progress towards them. To this extent, they encourage the substitution of concern with process for concern with outcome, a criticism which was made, for example, of some schools in the Disadvantaged Schools Program. This is not to deny the importance of either goals or process; it is to stress the need for objectives as an intermediate step in the attainment of outcomes through programs which have been tailored to achieve particular ends. Special programs which do not have clearly defined objectives must lack integrity as special programs. If their purposes are expressed as multiple goals, confusion in their operation is almost inevitable. Where they exist to produce greater equality of opportunity, they should in fact achieve better outcomes for their target group. There is considerable scope for improvement in the specification of objectives to be achieved and of the measures, quantitative or otherwise, which should be used to gauge whether progress is being made, within the broad framework of goals.
Process objectives may, within this configuration, have considerable weight.
Use of Specific Purpose Funds
12.34 A tendency for programs for specific purposes to become sources of general recurrent funding for school systems is noted, for instance, in the reports on the Country Areas and Multicultural Education Programs. The use of Ethnic School Program funds to set up compulsory community language programs for a particular class is another instance of a marked departure from original program intentions. Where these were seen to be seeding or pilot programs, concerned to foster a limited number of new initiatives, to raise awareness, or to encourage change in practice, the growing dependence on program funds to maintain projects on a recurring basis must raise doubts about whether the original aims of the programs are being met.
Commonwealth and Other Priorities
12.35 A closely related concern is with the apparent flexibility in interpretation of Commonwealth aims. The Special Education Program review observed the disparate approaches of the various systems; the Multicultural Education Program review commented on State and system variation; and the Disadvantaged Schools Program report noted that there are, in effect,fifteen Disadvantaged Schools Programs in operation (10).
167