In principle, education research might be expected to yield evidence on the determinants of success that could then be used to inform public policy. However, if key determinants are missing from empirical specifications, then public policy decisions may well be made in a vacuum. Moreover, if empirical work is informed by disparate conceptual approaches, then public policies may be formulated, which ultimately work at cross-purposes. We examine the issue of school size from both the economic and the ecological perspective. Our regressions on a seven year panel of Australian data suggest that there is a trade-off to be made between efficiency on the one hand, and the desire to lift academic standards on the other. Failure to consider the question of school size from both economic and ecological perspectives means that an important public policy lever has largely gone unrecognised in Australia. We conclude our essay with a consideration of the public policy implications arising from our work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsM., DuncombeW. and YingerJ.. (2002). Revisiting Economies of Size in American Education: Are We Any Closer to Consensus?Economics of Education Review21, 245–262.
2.
AbaldeM. (2014), “School Size Policies: A Literature Review”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 106, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxt472ddkjl-en.
3.
BakerB. and DuncombeW.. (2004). Balancing District Needs and Student Needs: The Role of Economies of Scale Adjustments and Pupil Need Weights in School Finance Formulas. Journal of Education Finance29(3), 195–221.
4.
BarkerR. and GumpR. (1964). Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behaviour. Stanford University Press: Standford.
5.
CrosnoeR., JohnsonM., and ElderG.. (2004). School Size and the Interpersonal Side of Education: An Examination of Race/Ethnicity and Organizational Context. Social Science Quarterly85(5), 1259–1274.
6.
DrewJ. and FaheyG.. (2018). Framing Unpopular Policies and Creating Policy Winners - the Role of Heresthetics. Policy & Politics. doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15241518778612.
7.
FischelW. (2006). The Tiebout Model at Fifty. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Press: Cambridge.
8.
GonskiD. (2011). Review of Funding for Schooling: Final Report. Canberra: Australian Government.
9.
HanushekE. (2003). The Failure of Input-Based Schooling Policies. The Economic Journal113, F64–F98.
10.
HanushekE. (2006). Our School Performance Matters. The Journal of Education185(3), 1–6.
11.
HunjanR. and BlumerC.. (2016). Australian Schools are in ‘Absolute Decline’ Globally, Says PISA Report. ABC, 7 December 2016.
12.
Infrastructure Australia (2018). Future Cities: Planning for our growing population, Reform Series, Sydney, Australia.
13.
KarpP. (2018). Will Scott Morrison's $4.6bn Package End the School Funding Wars?The Guardian, 21 September 2018.
14.
LeeV. and LoebS.. (2000). School Size in Chicago Elementary Schools: Effects on Teachers' Attitudes and Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal37(1), 3–31.
15.
LeeV., ReadyD., and JohnsonD.. (2001). The Difficulty of Identifying Rare Samples to Study: The Case of High Schools Divided Into Schools-Within-Schools. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis23(4), 365–379.
16.
LeithwoodK., and JantziD.. (2009). A Review of Empirical Evidence about School Size Effects: A Policy Perspective. Review of Educational Research79(1), 464–490.
17.
McNabH.Department of Education's Flagship High Rise School Plans Panned by City of Sydney. Daily Telegraph, 18 October, 2017.
18.
MainK. (2012). Effective Middle School Teacher Teams: A Ternary Model of Interdependency Rather than a Catch Phrase. Teachers and Teaching18(1), 75–88.
19.
MarksG. (2015a). The Size, Stability and Consistency of School Effects: Evidence from Victoria. School Effectiveness and School Improvement26(3), 397–414.
20.
MarksG. (2014) Demographic and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Student Achievement Over School Career. Australian Journal of Education58(3), 223–247.
21.
MarksG. (2015b) School Sector Differences in Student Achievement in Australian Primary and Secondary Schools: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Social Choice9(2), 219–238.
22.
MessnerJohannes. 1952. Social ethics. Natural law in the modern world. Translated by DohertyJ. J.. St Louis: B Herder Book Co.
23.
MillerP. and VoonD. (2012) Government Versus NonGovernment Schools: A Nation-wide Assessment Using Australian NAPLAN Data. Australian Economic Papers51(3), 147–166.
24.
MillerP. and VoonD.. (2014). School Outcomes in New South Wales and Queensland: A Regression Discontinuity Approach. Education Economics22(5), 427–448.
25.
New South Wales Teachers Federation (2018). Recess, Closure and Amalgamations of Schools. www.nswtf.org.au accessed 8th November 2018.
26.
NghiemH., NguyenH., KhanamR. and ConnellyL. (2015). Does School Type Affect Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Development in Children? Evidence from Australian Primary Schools. Labour Economics33, 55–65.
27.
OxleyD. (1997). Theory and Practice of School Communities. Educational Administration Quarterly33, 624–643.
28.
ProsserB. (2008). Unfinished But Not Yet Exhausted: A Review of Australian Middle Schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 52(2): 151–167.
29.
TeeseR. (2000) Academic Success & Social Power. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
30.
TeeseR. (2005). For Which Young People Do Schools Work Well and Why? In “No Time to Lose: The Wellbeing of Australia's Children”. RichardsonS. and PriorM. (eds). Carlton: Melbourne University Press.
31.
TomazinF. (2009). Our Disappearing Schools. The Sydney Morning Herald, 6th July 2009.
32.
WooldridgeJ. (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross section and Panel Data. MIT Press: Cambridge.
