# data[].attributes.headline
Equity and Excellence in Australian Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
Equity and Excellence in Australian Schools

# data[].attributes.headline
Social Inclusion at School: How to Help Low-Income Families

# data[].attributes.subject
Social Inclusion at School: How to Help Low-Income Families

# data[].attributes.headline
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians

# data[].attributes.subject
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians

# data[].attributes.body
One of the foremost measures to avoid "classing" students is developing a culture of solidarity in the school (Garrison et al., 2016-1). If there is an emphasis placed on the majority culture in the school, then addressing social justice can place students at odds with each other (Gunzenhauser, 2015). Young (2006) refers to the concept of a student "polity" (p. 100) in which individuals understand they are collectively affected by the same issues and governed and defined by the same sets of rules and negotiating procedures. This reflects a type of socialisation reflective of the public democratic processes in which a range of social classes participate and is regarded as being one of the main aims of an educational system (Young, 2006).

# data[].attributes.headline
School Perceptions and Indirect Exclusion

# data[].attributes.subject
School Perceptions and Indirect Exclusion

# data[].attributes.body
Incorrect assumptions are often made about the types of socio-economic backgrounds particular schools seek to cater for depending on whether they are part of the government or non-government sector (McAndless, 2015). McAndless (2015) identifies a lack of consistency in the types of students attending non-government schools. For example, many non-government and Catholic schools have little in common other than the fact they are not government run. This is reflected in the fact that overall non-government schools receive 57% of their funding from non-government sources and must follow government directions when implementing curricula (McAndless, 2015). In reality all schools seek to attract students who are applied and ready to learn and these equate to students with a middle class social habitus (McAndless, 2015). However it is how schools go about attracting these types of students which has the potential to exclude certain classes of students. In particular, the way in which schools with lower socio-economic statuses market themselves has the potential to dissuade the types of students they seek from attending the school and at the same time preventing those students that do attend the school from acquiring the cultural capital needed to get ahead. Research into the marketing materials of Australian schools has shown that schools associated with lower socio-economic statuses are more likely to promote hard work and discipline, whereas schools associated with higher socio-economic statuses are more likely to place greater emphasis on resilience and opportunities available to students for acquiring cultural capital outside the classroom (McAndless, 2015).

As Bourdieu notes, social classes are separated by their habitus which disposes them towards particular leanings or preferences as a result of socialisation (McAndless, 2015; Garrison, Neubert & Reich, 2016-2). Resilience is usually considered to be reflective of a middle class habitus whereas discipline is regarded as something to be imposed on a student who does not have such a habitus. For example, marketing materials of higher socio-economic schools tend to depict students engaged in sporting and other co-curricula activities (McAndless, 2015). Discipline as addressed in promotional materials of lower socio-economic schools is often a major factor influencing parents on where to send their children to school. This is because it influences perceptions of the types of socio-economic classes associated with the school (McAndless, 2015). To draw students from a wider variety of socio-economic backgrounds lower socio-economic schools need to facilitate inclusion by promoting in their marketing materials opportunities for students to connect with the wider social and cultural aspects of their urban and regional surrounds (Garrison et al., 2016-1). The continuity of learning experiences both in and outside the school enivironment is particularly important for students in lower socio-economic schools (Garrison et al., 2016-1). Indeed, maintaining a connection between the school, the home and the community provides the foundation for contexualised schooling (Garrison et al., 2016-1).

# data[].attributes.headline
Equity of Access: Striking the Right Balance

# data[].attributes.subject
Equity of Access: Striking the Right Balance

# data[].attributes.body
Students should not be stigmatised because of the socio-cultural attributes into which they have been socialised by a community" (Young, 2006, p. 6). This reflects Goal 1 of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, 2008) which promotes access to high quality schooling free from discrimination based on socio-economic background. Socialisation produces the "normalisation" (Young, 2006, p. 6) of certain student attributes based on affiliation with a particular social group. The prejudices around socio-economic statuses are found in the assumptions schools make often with little awareness of their effects (Young, 2006). For example, socio-economic status is no longer seen as a reliable demographic measure for determining student participation levels in the context of access to digital technologies and online learning (Hart, Bobeva, Hutchings & Taylor, 2015). Instead, research shows that classroom delivery of digital technologies has a greater capcity to exclude students than diversity of student backgrounds (Hart et al., 2015). While socio-economic status is a factor contributing to social exclusion, in the school context it often results from much more than a lack of resources (Watson, 2009). Social exclusion can also arise from factors that make students invisible to society such as geographic location or rejection based on physical or cultural attributes (Watson, 2009). Social exclusion can be defined as students lacking the "supports that promote wellbeing through active participation" (p. 2) irrespective of the cause. Until recently education policies have tended not to recognise how governance, school structure and teaching quality also impact significantly on social exclusion (Watson, 2009).  A move in this direction began with the development of the National Plan for School Improvement (Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2013) and the National Education Reform Agreement (Council of Australian Governments, 2013) signed by New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and Tasmania in 2013 (Parliament of Australia, 2014). Schools in every State and Territory need to address the recommendations outlined in those documents in addition to student background to ensure equity of access to high quality schooling for students of all socio-economic backgrounds.

In a liberal democratic society some individuals seek acceptance of their particular attributes while others attempt to avoid stigmatisation altogether (Young, 2006). A school's response to each of these approaches needs to be finely balanced in the context of student acceptance and diversity. The Victorian Government has developed a policy on Social Inclusion at School (Department of Education & Training, 2018) ("policy") containing an inclusion checklist which it recommendeds all teachers consult irrespective of the majority of student backgrounds at a particular school. In relation to disadvantaged students the policy recognises the concerns of parents from low socio-economic backgrounds that their children will stand out or be stigmatised because of their inability to pay for materials such as uniforms, books and stationery. To avoid stigmatisation schools must create "opportunities for learning in heterogeneous groups based on participation in shared resources, projects, communities, learning and decision-making processes" (Garrison, Neubert & Reich, 2016-1, p. 191).  To that effect the policy recommends that schools take such measures as including money in the school budget to assist low-income families, avoiding unnecessary fundraising activities that put pressure upon or embarrass low-income families, and ensuring a school environment that creates the opportunity for parents to seek assistance and the confidence to do so. In relation to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds who attend non-government schools the policy recommends encouraging families to seek discounts or waivers from compulsory fees when experiencing difficulty.

# data[].attributes.body
Council of Australian Governments. (2013). National Education Reform Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/national_agreements/past/national-education-agreement.pdf

Department of Education and Training. (2018). Social Inclusion at School: How to Help Low-Income Families. Retrieved from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/principals/spag/management/PP_SocialInclusion.pdf

Garrison, J., Neubert, S., & Reich, K. (2016). Capitals as Contexts for Education. In J. Garrison, S. Neubert, & K. Reich (Eds.), Democracy and Education Reconsidered: Dewey After One Hundred Years (pp. 173-193). London: Routledge. cited as Garrison et al. (2016-1)

Garrison, J., Neubert, S., & Reich, K. (2016). Class, Race, Gender and Disability. In J. Garrison, S. Neubert, & K. Reich (Eds.), Democracy and Education Reconsidered: Dewey After One Hundred Years (pp. 173-193). London: Routledge. cited as Garrison et al. (2016-2)

Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. (2013). National Plan for School Improvement. Retrieved from https://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/glossy/gonski_policy/download/NPSI.pdf

Gunzenhauser, M. G. (2015). Enacting Social Justice Ethically: Individual and Community Habits. A Response to “Ethics in Teaching for Democracy and Social Justice”. Democracy & Education, 23(2), 1-6.

Hart, B. C., Bobeva, M., Hutchings, M., & Taylor, J. (2015). Strategies for Digital Inclusion: Towards a Pedagogy for Embracing and Sustaining Student Diversity and Engagement with Online Learning. IAFOR Journal of Education, Technologies and Education Special Edition, 86-106.

McCandless, T. (2015). Classing Schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(6), 808-820.

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals of Young People. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf

Parliament of Australia. (2014). Equity and Excellence in Australian Schools. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/index

Watson, L. (2009). The Challenge of Social Inclusion for Australia Schooling. Proceedings of the Australian Social Policy Conference 2009. Retrieved from https://www.aspc.unsw.edu.au/sites/www.aspc.unsw.edu.au/files/uploads/aspc_historical_conferences/2009/paper286.pdf

Young, I.M. (2006). Education in the Context of Structural Injustice: A symposium response. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(1), 93-103.

# data[].attributes.body
Home/title page

Equitable Resourcing and Financial Support

Meeting Students' Academic Needs: Deficit Attitudes and High Expectations

Representation: Student Voice- how students' feedback and evaluation achieve a more effective learning