School socio-economic composition and student outcomes in Australia: Implications for educational policy

Australian Journal of Education

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 72-85

  Perry, Laura ^a   McConney, Andrew ^a  

^a MURDOCH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Funding formulas; Mathematics achievement; Policy analysis; Reading achievement; Socioeconomic background

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952994384     PISSN: 00049441     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/000494411005400106     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. American Educational Research Association. (2003). Class size: Counting students can count. Research Points, 1(2), 1-4.
2. Blossfeld, H.-P., & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persisting barriers: Changes in educational opportunities in thirteen countries. In Y. Shavit & H.-P. Blossfeld (Eds.), Persistent inequality (pp. 1-24). Boulder, CO: Westview.
3. Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. III. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 269-277. (Pubitemid 127382821)
4. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
5. Dowling, A. (2008). Towards a national school funding model. Research Developments, 19(2), 1-5.
6. Edwards, D. (2006). Competition, specialisation and stratification: Academic outcomes of the government school system in Melbourne, Australia. Paper presented at the Comparative Education Society in Europe conference, Granada, Spain.
7. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
8. Kalamazoo Promise. (2010). Retrieved from www.kalamazoopromise.com
9. Kahlenberg, R. (2001). All together now: Creating middle-class sdtools through public school choices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
10. Lamb, S. (2007). School reform and inequality in urban Australia: A case of residualising the poor. In R. Teese, S. Lamb & M. Duru-Belat (Eds.), Education and inequality (pp. 1-38). (Vol. 3.) Dordrecht: Springer.
11. Lamb, S., Hogan, D., & Johnson, T. (2001). The stratification of learning opportunities and achievement in Tasmanian secondary schools. Australian Journal of Education, 45(2), 153-167.
12. Lokan, J., Greenwood, L., & Cresswell, J. (2001). The PISA 2000 survey of students' reading, mathematical and scientific literacy skills: How literate are Australia's students? Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
13. Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2005). A new look at public and private schools: Student background and mathematics achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 696-699.
14. Marjoribanks, K. (1979). Families and their learning environments: An empirical analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
15. Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(2), 105-128. (Pubitemid 43688758)
16. Matear, A. (2006). Equity in education in Chile: The tensions between policy and practice. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(1), 101-113.
17. Noel, S., & de Broucker, P. (2001). Intergenerational inequities: A comparative analysis of the influence of parents' educational background on length of schooling and literacy skills. In W. Hutmacher, D. Cochrane & N. Bottani (Eds.), In pursuit of equity in education: Using international indicators to compare equity policies (pp. 277-298). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
18. Oakes, J. (2000). The distribution of knowledge. In R. Arum & I. R. Beattie (Eds.), The structure of schooling: Readings in the sociology of education (pp. 224-234). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
19. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). School factors related to quality and equity: Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Author.
21. Orfield, G. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of education. New York: New Press.
22. Perry, L. (2009). Characteristics of equitable systems of education: A cross-national analysis. European Education, 41(1), 79-100.
23. Perry, L., & McConney, A. (in press). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College Record.
24. Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107(9), 1999-2045.
25. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.
26. Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 652-679.
27. Thomson, S., Cresswell, J., & De Bortoli, L. (2003). Facing the future: A focus on mathematical literacy among Australian 15-year-old students in PISA 2003. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
28. Thrupp, M. (1995). The school mix effect: The history of an enduring problem in educational research, policy and practice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(2), 183-203.
29. Willms, J. D. (1999). Quality and inequality in children's literacy: The effects on families, schools, and communities. In D. P. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 72-73). New York: Guilford Press.
30. Yale University. (2008). Partnerships. Retrieved 11 January 2010 from http://www.yale. edu/onhsa/youth-partnerships.htm