Parents who pay large sums of money for their children to attend high-fee non-government schools may have received a bit of a jolt this week, with a new study reportedly showing that attendance at an independent or Catholic primary school ‘did not confer any significant advantage on students’.
It makes this claim by comparing NAPLAN and other test results, and statistically controlling for the influence of individual factors like socioeconomic advantage and child health.
In terms of public policy, however, this is great news. It indicates that public schools, on average, are holding their own. School choice has not, as is often claimed, created a tiered school system of winners and losers. This study suggests that any given child will achieve just as well in any school sector, on average, on the indicators measured.
The study by a group of researchers at the University of Queensland, University of Southern Queensland and Curtin University is the most recent of several studies in just the last year comparing government and non-government schools — or as they are often classified, public and private schools — and mostly finding no significant differences between the sectors.
This most recent study looked at primary school outcomes, while other studies have used NAPLAN data for Year 9, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) data for 15 year olds, HSC scores, and post-school outcomes. While there is variation in the results, with some studies finding small significant differences in some measures, the overall picture is one of similar outcomes on average for all sectors.
What does this research tell us? Does it tell us that non-government schools are a waste of family budgets and public money? Definitely not.
Academic outcomes are not the only criteria for school choice. Numerous surveys over the last decade have found that parents rank aspects such as values and discipline more highly. Parents who are weighing up the costs and benefits of various schools will take more than NAPLAN scores into account when determining value for their investment.
As for the implications for public funding, these studies indicate that non-government schools are good value. Average public funding (federal and state combined) for non-government school students in 2012-13 was $8,812 per student — around 56% of the $15,703 per student spent on government school students. Non-government schools therefore offer an alternative to public schools, with at least equivalent academic results (as measured by test scores), at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
Furthermore, and importantly, the findings suggest that a healthy non-government school sector has not had a disastrous detrimental effect on public schools. It seems that public schools, and the students in them, are competitive. Ten or fifteen years ago, comparisons of government and non-government schools tended to show superior results for non-government schools. Since then, over a period in which school choice has increased, the sector differences in performance have dissipated.
These studies also highlight the importance of detailed data on school and student performance. The availability of NAPLAN data to researchers has allowed more sophisticated analyses of school results, with public debate and policy development becoming more informed as a consequence. Prior to NAPLAN and PISA, school and school sector analysis was largely based on statistics that could only make simplistic comparisons.
Another dimension of the discussion of school sector comparisons is the impact of socioeconomic status. Although it is clear that socioeconomic status is related to student and school performance, the extent and means by which it exerts its influence is far from settled and should not be taken at face value.
There is evidence to suggest that socioeconomic status is a proxy for other, more directly influential characteristics, such as cognitive ability and parenting practices. Some research has suggested that socioeconomic status is more powerful at a collective level — that the average socioeconomic status of a school has a stronger influence than a student’s own socioeconomic status — and that this demands funding models that reflect this, particularly for public schools. However, there is also good research that disputes this conclusion, meaning that calls for heavy increases in funding on this basis may not be defensible.
Ultimately, though, while discussions of the qualities of public versus private schools are interesting and important at an academic and policy level, few parents choose a school sector for their child — they choose a school based on the individual merits of the schools available to them. Whether or not public schools on average are better or worse or the same as non-government schools on average is irrelevant to families. There is no typical child and no average school.
Parents make judgements about what is best for their child, based on their own priorities. The range of differences in school quality and character are greater within the school sectors than between them. What these studies tell us is that there is no reason for parents to be denied choice in schooling, and no reason not to explore policies that would offer more choice to more parents.
Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Public primary schools are holding their own
Public primary schools are holding their own
It makes this claim by comparing NAPLAN and other test results, and statistically controlling for the influence of individual factors like socioeconomic advantage and child health.
In terms of public policy, however, this is great news. It indicates that public schools, on average, are holding their own. School choice has not, as is often claimed, created a tiered school system of winners and losers. This study suggests that any given child will achieve just as well in any school sector, on average, on the indicators measured.
The study by a group of researchers at the University of Queensland, University of Southern Queensland and Curtin University is the most recent of several studies in just the last year comparing government and non-government schools — or as they are often classified, public and private schools — and mostly finding no significant differences between the sectors.
This most recent study looked at primary school outcomes, while other studies have used NAPLAN data for Year 9, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) data for 15 year olds, HSC scores, and post-school outcomes. While there is variation in the results, with some studies finding small significant differences in some measures, the overall picture is one of similar outcomes on average for all sectors.
What does this research tell us? Does it tell us that non-government schools are a waste of family budgets and public money? Definitely not.
Academic outcomes are not the only criteria for school choice. Numerous surveys over the last decade have found that parents rank aspects such as values and discipline more highly. Parents who are weighing up the costs and benefits of various schools will take more than NAPLAN scores into account when determining value for their investment.
As for the implications for public funding, these studies indicate that non-government schools are good value. Average public funding (federal and state combined) for non-government school students in 2012-13 was $8,812 per student — around 56% of the $15,703 per student spent on government school students. Non-government schools therefore offer an alternative to public schools, with at least equivalent academic results (as measured by test scores), at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
Furthermore, and importantly, the findings suggest that a healthy non-government school sector has not had a disastrous detrimental effect on public schools. It seems that public schools, and the students in them, are competitive. Ten or fifteen years ago, comparisons of government and non-government schools tended to show superior results for non-government schools. Since then, over a period in which school choice has increased, the sector differences in performance have dissipated.
These studies also highlight the importance of detailed data on school and student performance. The availability of NAPLAN data to researchers has allowed more sophisticated analyses of school results, with public debate and policy development becoming more informed as a consequence. Prior to NAPLAN and PISA, school and school sector analysis was largely based on statistics that could only make simplistic comparisons.
Another dimension of the discussion of school sector comparisons is the impact of socioeconomic status. Although it is clear that socioeconomic status is related to student and school performance, the extent and means by which it exerts its influence is far from settled and should not be taken at face value.
There is evidence to suggest that socioeconomic status is a proxy for other, more directly influential characteristics, such as cognitive ability and parenting practices. Some research has suggested that socioeconomic status is more powerful at a collective level — that the average socioeconomic status of a school has a stronger influence than a student’s own socioeconomic status — and that this demands funding models that reflect this, particularly for public schools. However, there is also good research that disputes this conclusion, meaning that calls for heavy increases in funding on this basis may not be defensible.
Ultimately, though, while discussions of the qualities of public versus private schools are interesting and important at an academic and policy level, few parents choose a school sector for their child — they choose a school based on the individual merits of the schools available to them. Whether or not public schools on average are better or worse or the same as non-government schools on average is irrelevant to families. There is no typical child and no average school.
Parents make judgements about what is best for their child, based on their own priorities. The range of differences in school quality and character are greater within the school sectors than between them. What these studies tell us is that there is no reason for parents to be denied choice in schooling, and no reason not to explore policies that would offer more choice to more parents.
Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: