Currently, modes of resourcing ‘disadvantage’ in Queensland secondary, primary and special schools is a contentious issue. It appears that neither the criteria nor the procedures for decision making in this area are satisfactory or consistent. Accountability and professional standards require processes which can be shown to be just and use objective criteria. This study seeks to recommend more objective and comprehensive criteria and procedures for identification of, and resource allocation for, the educationally disadvantaged. A Departmental Reference Group was consulted regularly throughout the development of this project in order to incorporate appropriate Departmental perspectives and practices and to expedite the dissemination of material to schools. The findings of a literature review were used in conjunction with consultation with a regional reference group for social justice issues, survey information, and a field test to formulate a profile which assessed disadvantage. This instrument was trialled in 16 Darling Downs schools and evaluated with a view to its usefulness, practicality and accuracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott-ChapmanJ., HughesP., & WyldC. (1986). Australian Secondary Education Project: Participation and retention rates and social and educational factors which are related to them in Australia. Australia: University of Tasmania.
2.
AllenS. (1989). Retention and social justice in education. Independent Education, 19, 3, 11–14.
3.
AshlineN.F., PezzulloT.R., & NorrisC.I. (Eds) (1976). Education, inequality, and national policy. USA: D.C. Heath and Company.
4.
BarroS.M. (1989). Fund distribution issues in school finance: Priorities for the next round of research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyses, 11, 1, 17–30.
5.
BempechatJ., & GinsburgH.P. (1989). Underachievement and educational disadvantage: The home and school experience of at-risk youth. Urban Diversity Series No. 99. Washington: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
6.
BurnsA., & HomelR. (1985). Social inequalities and adjustment to school. The Australian Journal of Education, 29, 1, 76–91.
7.
ByrneD.S., WilliamsonB., & FletcherB. (1975). The poverty of education. London: Martin Robertson and Co. Ltd.
ClyneP. (1972). The disadvantaged adult. London: Longman Groups Ltd.
12.
ColemanJ.S. (1966). Equal schools or equal students?Public Interest, 1, 70–75.
13.
Commonwealth Schools Commission (1985). Quality and equality in schooling. Canberra: Canberra Publishing and Printing Co.
14.
ConnellR.W., AshendenD.J., KesslerS., & DowsettG.W. (1982). Making the difference. Australia: George Allen and Unwin.
15.
CrispL. (1990). The underclass. Australia's social time bomb. The Bulletin, April 3, 48–56. Drazen S. (1989). The allocation and distribution of Chapter 1 funds in New York State school districts. Draft. USA: Cornell University.
16.
EdgarD. (1986). Poverty and its impact on educational life-chances: Family-produced or system-produced disadvantage?Unicorn, 12, 1, 4–12.
17.
FeeneyJ.D. (1982). A simulation model for the selection of special need schools. Research Report.
GoertzM.E., MilneA., ColeyR.J., HoppeM.R., GaffneyM.J., & SchemberD.M. (1987). School districts' allocation of Chapter 1 resources. Final Report. USA: Educational Testing Service.
20.
GoldbergerA.S., CainG.G. (1982). The causal analysis of cognitive outcomes in the Coleman, Hoffer and Kilgore Report. Sociology of Education, 55, 103–122.
21.
GordonE. (1976). Education of the disadvantaged: A problem of human diversity. In AshlineN.J., PezzulloT.R., & NorrisC.I. (Eds) Education, inequality and national policy. USA: D.C. Heath and Company.
22.
GraetzB. (1988). The reproduction of privilege in Australian education. The British Journal of Sociology, 39, 3, 358–376.
23.
GreenS.J.D. (1988). Is equality of opportunity a false ideal for society?The British Journal of Sociology, 39, 1, 1–26.
24.
HalseyA.H. (Ed.) (1972). Educational priority. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
25.
HalseyA.H. (1973). Education and social class in 1972. In JonesK. (Ed.) Yearbook of social policy 1973. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
26.
HarrisonR.S. (1976). Equality in public school finance. USA: Lexington Books.
27.
JaegerC. (1987). Minority and low income high schools: Evidence of educational inequality in metro Los Angeles. Working Paper No. 8. Illinois: Chicago University.
28.
JencksC. (1973). Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
29.
JohnstonS. (1990). Retention rates: More than just counting heads. Queensland: Department of Education.
30.
KarmelP. (1985). Quality and equality in education. Australian journal of Education, 29, 279–293.
31.
KeevesJ.P. (1986). Equitable opportunities in Australian education. Victoria: Ministry of Education.
32.
KeysS.G., JacobsG., & CelottaB. (1990). Communicating about feelings: A classroom guidance approach for rural disadvantaged students. The School Counselor, 37, 192–196.
33.
LevinH.M. (1982). Federal grants and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 4, 444–459.
34.
LevineD., & EubanksE. (1985). Long-term relationships between socio-economic status, race and achievement in a big-city school district. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. USA. University of Missouri – Kansas City.
35.
MurphyJ. (1990). A most respectable prejudice: Inequality in educational research and policy. The British Journal of Sociology, 41, 1, 29–53.
36.
MurrayS.L., & BravermanM.T. (1983). Ensuring equity in student selection under Chapter 1. Research on evaluation program. Paper and Report Series No. 84. Washington: National Institute of Education.
37.
PallasA.M., NatrielloG., & McDillE.L. (1988). Who falls behind: Defining the ‘at-risk’ population - current dimensions and future trends. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
38.
PallasA.M., NatrielloG., & McDillE.L. (1989). The changing nature of the disadvantaged population: Current dimensions and future trends. Educational Researcher, June-July, 16–22.
39.
PlowdenB. (1967). Children and their primary schools: Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England). Volume 1: The Report. Great Britain Department of Education and Science. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
40.
PrestonN. (1990). The Fitzgerald Report and education: A case of ideology, the State and education policy. Unicorn, 16, 1, 8–14.
41.
RiddleW. (1989). Education for disadvantaged children: Major themes in the 1988 reauthorisation of Chapter 1. CRS Report for Congress. USA: Congressional Research Service.
42.
RossK.N. (1983). Social area indicators of educational need. ACER Research Monograph No. 20. Victoria: ACER.
43.
RossK. (1984). Resource allocation and educational need. The Australian Journal of Education, 28, 1, 25–44.
44.
RubyA., ReddenJ., SobskiJ., & WilmotE. (1985). Report of the National Review of the Disadvantaged Schools Program. Canberra: Commonwealth Schools Commission.
45.
RushtonJ. (1975). Education and deprivation: An introduction. In RushtonJ., & TurnerJ.Education and deprivation. England: Manchester University Press.
StennettR.G. (1983). Resource allocation. Paper presented at the Conference of the Association of Educational Research Offices of Ontario.
48.
USA Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education of the Committee on Education and Labor (1987). Targeting students for Chapter 1 services: Are the students in greatest need being served?Washington: Congress of the US.
49.
Victorian Ministry of Education (1990). Equitable opportunities in Australian education. Curriculum Branch: Ministry of Education, Victoria.
50.
WagemakerH. (1987). Maori and Pakeha school performance: The challenge for eduational policy and research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society. Washington DC.
51.
WaltersD.L. (1986). Equity and diversity: A challenge for the allocation of financial resources. Paper presented at the Meeting of the International Visitation Program in Educational Administration.
52.
WiseA.E., & GendlerT. (1989). Rich schools, poor schools. The College Board Review, 151, 12–37.
