History of Mass Education in Australia

History of Mass Education
Definition
Mass Education is a large macro-level educational system funded and run by the government. It is usually compulsory to ensure that the population gets an equal chance at an education.
Review
The Mass Education system that the schools of Northville are a small part of, has many and varied influences that can be traced back to colonial Australia. In the 1800’s there was no Mass education system; schooling was predominantly run by churches or by settlers who volunteered their time and received partial funding by the Government. This remained the case until “The New South Wales Public Instruction Act of 1880” was passed, stating that all teachers be made public servants, schools became un-denominational, and funding of public schools become the sole responsibility of the Government. The Act also stated that history of England and Australia must form part of the course, and that attendance be made obligatory between the ages of six to fourteen (ABS, 1909). The Act was then replicated around Australia by the other states. This is the first example of the beginnings of a Mass education system in New South Wales. It also paved the way for Government responsibility and a monetary funding pattern that would continue until 1964, when the Australian Parliament passed legislation authorising financial assistance to non-government schools (National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition, 2000).
Another major influence on schools is Race. With the state Governments providing a “free and fair” education for all students within a two kilometre radius, many Aboriginal students were enrolled. However this proved to be problematic, as racial tensions amongst the no-Aboriginal community grew. Mixed race education was seen as “improper”. Aboriginal students were then excluded from many public schools after the “Exclusion on Demand” policy was introduced in New South Wales in 1909. Under the Act, NSW schools were forced to remove Aboriginal children from school if non-Aboriginal parents complained (Goodall, 1990). In the same year the “Aboriginal Protection Act” was made law. This Act made it possible for the Aboriginal Protection Board to take Aboriginal children away from their parents if they were thought to be “neglected”. This continued to the late 1930’s when there was a shift from “protection” to “inclusion” (Cadzow, 2007). However, Aboriginal students continue to be disadvantaged to this day.
Gender equality has been at the forefront of Mass Education for decades. Historically, the subject areas of Mathematics, Science, and Design and Technology have been seen as “Male” subjects, while English and Cooking have been seen as “Female” subjects. This has been a long held idea in Australian Mass Education, as females were widely believed to not gain employment, and instead become mothers and housewives. Men, on the other hand, were seen as the “breadwinners” who provided a pay check into the household. Times changed, however, and with many males overseas fighting in the world wars, females filled their vacant positions. Consequently, there was a push for women through curriculum to excel in the “Male” subjects and indeed they did. Now for the first time females were outperforming males in testing. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, women were also enrolling into university with increasing numbers. This then prompted a “Boy turn” in educational practices, which continues today. While the returned emphasis on male education has shown much improvement, males are still far behind in basic areas such as reading (Mullis, 2007).

Research
Throughout Australia’s history, the continued development of a fair and equitable Mass Education system has been influenced by race and gender views. As such there is much research into these fields. This research will provide an invaluable insight into how Northville Public runs, and how it compares historically with other schools in Australia. This information can be used to help improve Northville Public, as well as other schools.
Society’s views on gender roles have long influenced Mass Education in Australia. Weaver-Hightower (2003) believes that there has been a prolonged focus on girls in the past; but that with this decade’s emphasis on male education, or “Boy turn” has not disadvantaged girls, but has aided boys. He also states that gender inequalities can be stemmed to a world-wide, long held belief in the “traditional” masculinities and femininities (Weaver-Hightower, 2003). Conversely, the Gender Equity Taskforce for the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (1997), states that historically, developing and proving masculinity comes at the expense of femininity, and men, as a group, are powerful and dominate the economic, political, social and personal spheres of life.
In regards to Aboriginal education and its effects on the institution of Mass Education in Australia, research overwhelmingly points to Indigenous populations being mistreated and racially vilified educationally from the first schoolhouses being built in the 1800’s to the late 1970’s. However in 1989 the Commonwealth Government introduced the national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2001). This was the first policy on Indigenous education formally endorsed by any national government and it, and other Aboriginal Education policies have subsequently has improved Aboriginal achievement levels. However because of the generations of little or no education, and the mistrust that comes with it, Aboriginal student’s achievement is “significantly lower than non-Indigenous students in all areas tested and all jurisdictions” (Gillard, J. 2008).
Possibly the biggest contributor to Australia’s Mass Education system and how it’s been shaped through history is the Government’s vision of the Mass education system, and how it perceives which institution, Government, Catholic, or Independent, should be encouraged more. This is done with research into the Government’s expenditure of schools.
While State and Federal Governments have explicitly stated and provided a mass education system where any child can receive an education over 150 years ago, many would argue that this system never has been, and still is not, fair and equitable. Since 1972 the Federal government has provided substantial monetary assistance on a “needs” basis. However all private and independent schools receive monetary aid from the Government, most up to eighty per cent. This practice continued through to 1996 where the newly-elected Government increased subsidies for “private” schools. These measures made it easier to establish private schools, states Potts (1997). Likewise, Cobbold (2010) has found that Government schools are severely under-resourced in comparison to Catholic and Independent schools. This creates an educational disadvantage across all Government schools, which creates a cycle of low achievement by Government school’s mostly low SES (Socio-economic status), mixed-race population. Most importantly, Cobbold has found that Federal and State Governments have given greater priority to “supporting privilege in education over the last decade than to eliminating disadvantage and inequity in education”. He states that “the wealthiest private schools in Australia continue to receive government funding of $2,000-$4,000 per student despite having 2 to 3 times the resources of government schools and negligible levels of education disadvantage”, and that “Federal Government funding for the wealthiest schools in Australia is 4 to 8 times more than the additional funding it provides to low SES schools”.
This research clearly shows that by looking back to the past, one can see how some of society’s attitudes and viewpoints of schooling as an institution have changed over time, and how some have not. These perspectives have shaped the way schooling is carried out in Australia on a macro level, and how Northville Public School is run on a micro level of this system. All of these points demonstrate that Northville has issues; and that these issues must be solved to obtain some sort of “equality”.
Aim
By examining the history of Australia’s mass education system, some themes appear to run through the past to today. By looking at these themes one can get a sense of issues that must be addressed so that Northville Public School, and other schools for that matter, can provide an equal education. This is a view shared by the Melbourne Declaration (2008). Amongst other things, the declaration states that one of its goals is to “ensure that socioeconomic disadvantage ceases to be a significant determinant of educational outcomes”.

Recommendations
First and foremost, the one major change that should be implemented is a change to school funding that would be applied to every single school in Australia. Ideally funding would be based on a “needs” basis that would be partly evaluated by Census data. The first hurdle for this plan is for the approach to be unvaryingly agreed upon, so not repeat past policies such as the Government’s 1972 monetary grants (Potts 1997). By improving Government school funding, and possibly reducing non-Government school funding, hopefully results in Government schools will improve, which will then attract more teachers and pupils from not just low, but a variety of SES backgrounds. This will provide a positive benefit for the community of Northville as higher results initially will result in a higher level of social capital over time, as parents will look to send their children to Northville Public and form both functional and value-based relationships (Corten & Dronkers, 2006). These relationships are known to exist in wealthier schools around the world and would surely include Bansbury Collage. In turn this would significantly improve many families (in particular, indigenous families) distrust in the state schooling system. This newer, more supportive, environment would then permeate into the school ethos, and create a newer improved, higher achieving culture amongst staff. This would then deliver higher results for years to come.
For this scheme to work, however, the Government would need to know “the exact details of the funding and private income that each individual school, both government and non-government, receive as well as their changing circumstances” (Dowling, 2008). This would be a mammoth undertaking, and would take years. At the moment most states cannot report financial information on a school-by-school basis, much less a student–by-student basis. This is the second major hurdle that will need to be overcome. This Macro-level change of the mass schooling system will be a long road but not insurmountable, and the benefits are numerous to students and teachers, as well as for the Government, as increased detail of funding will make the Mass education system the most transpirable it has ever been. Increased funding will also result in more money for Aboriginal staff, which will benefit Aboriginal education, and provide a more gender-balanced staff; that will challenge pre-conceived notions that home economics are for females and industrial is for males.
Evaluation
To evaluate the success of this funding change and its effects on Northville Public, one must have realistic expectations of how long the plan will take to have any effects and what exactly those effects will be. To do this, the focus of the plan would rest with the schools NAPLAN results. Currently Northville Public is well below the national average in all areas. By improving funding one would hope that the NAPLAN results would increase. So to evaluate the success of the scheme, Northville Public would be given five years to improve to at least national standard in all areas of the NAPLAN. If successful then the government can look to expand the scheme to other schools, with hopefully the entire system overhauled.

Conclusion
Over this report, several issues have been raised as holding Northville Public School back and keeping it from getting classified as being a “fair” school. These range across many areas but in particular the areas of mass education and funding, ethnicity, Politics of educational testing and assessment, the 'Hidden curriculum ' and Gender and social contexts.
Throughout the report many suggestions or recommendations were made to improve “fairness” at Northville Public. These included: * a whole new funding model for all government schools to match that of non-government schools * sharing resources between all schools, both government and non-government schools, to multiply the curriculum opportunities and facilities available for students * holding community workshops, and cultural lessons; as well as hiring Community liaison officers to improve knowledge, trust and understanding of Northville’s various ethnicities * focusing on teaching ESL children through learning programs such as accelerated literacy * having a more culturally sensitive set of “common courtesies” * holding programs to encourage more parental involvement in school activities * challenging gender stereotypes by employing males to traditionally non-male areas of employment and females to traditionally non-female areas of employment * holding regular community forums and discussions to improve community support for challenging gender inequality * having an across-curriculum approach to gender and human sexuality * introduce streaming to classes in order for teachers to specifically target problem areas such as ESL children * having a more culturally sensitive uniform policy

By implementing all of the above plans and strategies, Northville Public School would effectively be overhauled, and finally be able to compete with other schools to become “fair”.

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1909). Year Book Australia. No 2. p. 880.
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2001). A History of Indigenous Education. Retrieved on 11th October 2001 from http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/rural_education/briefing/indigenous_ed1.html
Cadzow, A. (2007). NSW Aboriginal Education Timeline 1788–2007. Retrieved on 11th October 2011 from http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/files/timeline1788-2007.pdf
Corten, R. & Dronkers, J. (2006). School achievement of pupils from the lower strata in public, private government-dependent and private government-independent schools: A cross-national test of the Coleman-Hoffer thesis, Educational Research and Evaluation, 12:02, 179-208.
Dowling, A. (2008). Towards a National School Funding Model. Research Developments. (19). 2, 3-4.
Gillard, J. (2008). NAPLAN National Report Released. Retrieved on 11th October 2011 from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Gillard/Media/Releases/Pages/Article_090105_133929.aspx
Goodall, H.(1990). ‘Saving the Children: Gender and the Colonisation of Aboriginal Children in NSW 1788–1990’, Aboriginal Law Bulletin, pp 6–9.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved October 15th, 2011, from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf
Mullis, I.V.S. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International Report: IEA 's Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary schools in 40 Countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre.
National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition. (2000). The Australian education system: historical development. Retrieved on 11th October 2011 from http://www.griffith.edu.au/vc/ate/content_sectors_schoolhistory.html
Potts, A. (1997). Public and Private Schooling In Australia - Historical And Contemporary Considerations. Bendigo, Australia: La Trobe University.
Weaver-Hightower , M. (2003). The "Boy Turn" in Research on Gender and Education. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 471-498

References: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1909). Year Book Australia. No 2. p. 880. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2001). A History of Indigenous Education. Retrieved on 11th October 2001 from http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/rural_education/briefing/indigenous_ed1.html Cadzow, A Dowling, A. (2008). Towards a National School Funding Model. Research Developments. (19). 2, 3-4. Gillard, J. (2008). NAPLAN National Report Released. Retrieved on 11th October 2011 from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Gillard/Media/Releases/Pages/Article_090105_133929.aspx Goodall, H.(1990) National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition. (2000). The Australian education system: historical development. Retrieved on 11th October 2011 from http://www.griffith.edu.au/vc/ate/content_sectors_schoolhistory.html Potts, A Weaver-Hightower , M. (2003). The "Boy Turn" in Research on Gender and Education. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 471-498