EDF 5806 Assessment Task Two: Research Essay

Neoliberalism and the Gonski Review:

Examining the Role of the State in Equity and Funding
Justin Sim, Monash University
I. Introduction
The commodification of education has a historical element to it: Milton
Friedman first conceptualised the separation of public and private realms
with regards to school choice in Capitalism and Freedom (1955), although
in truth schooling has served as a means of acquiring and maintaining
social cachet and financial capital for much longer than that. Private
academies, traditionally the preserve of the gentry, were by definition
exclusive, and therefore exist and continue to exist within the sphere of
private interests. Yet few would contest that the provision of mass
education is of universal benefit, and that this gain can be quantified
through the lens of historical materialism, such as a documented rise in
living standards. In recognising this edifying quality of education, the state
sought to assume responsibility for its provision through the
establishment of a public schooling system in which all children had right
of place to, regardless of the financial circumstances of their family. Such
a system is funded primarily by taxation. Education must thus be
conceived of as a public good and a basic human right prima facie,
although the means and manner of its delivery cannot be exempt from
criticism.
Friedmans theory of neoliberalism, which is reckoned by Venugopal
(2015, p. 165) as the most dominant and pervasive economic policy of
our times, is characterised by a contraction of the functions and powers
of the state relative to the market. The central logic underpinning
neoliberal policy is that of maximising efficiency: that market forces,
through their invisible hand, encourage competition between public and
private sectors in the production of a certain good (ibid, p. 5). As a result,
school choice has become something of a mantra in educational policy

across the Anglosphere, characterised by the decline in the proportion of

students attending a government-run secondary school, and the
encouragement of market-based competition in all schools besides
(Campbell, Proctor & Sherington, 2009, p. 1). That would be all and well if
education were merely a consumer good, but as has been previously
argued, it is also clearly an ethical obligation the government owes to its
citizens, and this is reflected in the subsidisation of both public and
private institutions in a government-supported quasi-market (Whitty,
1997). Present, too, is the belief that education should serve as the great
equaliser to remedy the class-based inequalities of the previous
centuries, being the chief tool by which society can be reshaped in more
egalitarian terms. Researchers contend that inequalities are exacerbated
by market determinism of school choice, and leads to vastly disparate
educational experiences by children from diverse ethnic and
socioeconomic groups (Walford, 2006, p. 214). One can already begin to
grasp some idea of the inherent contradictions within these two
imperatives, that of the moral versus that of the utilitarian, even without
accounting for the politically charged ideologies that shape contemporary
politics in Australia. In short, we cannot take the de facto ruling status of
neoliberalism in the private sphere to legitimise its use in educational
doctrine.
There is a growing suggestion that successive Labor and Liberal
governments have presided over a decline in the quality and global
competitiveness of the Australian education system in the past ten or so
years, and that inequities that result from the pursuit of neoliberal policies
lie at the root of the problem. The Gonski report seeks to address these
problems by changing, above all, the allegedly unequal and convoluted
system of school funding policy (Donnelly, 2012, p. 70). This purpose of
this paper is to examine, one, the neoliberal policy of school choice and its
contributing role towards inequality; and two, the recommendations of the
Gonski report in addressing this problem and their potential impact in the
education sector. In order to accomplish this, I first propose a framework
that accounts for and attempts to reconcile the competing philosophies

that I have outlined. This framework is then used to assess the potential
consequences of following through with (or abandoning) the Gonski
reforms, whether they are implemented in whole or in part. The paper
concludes by broadening the context of debate to that of neighbouring
Asian countries, especially those whose students perform highly in
standardised tests, and relates equity in education to wider social
concerns.
II. Libertarianism and Instrumentalism in the Education Market
This section outlines the arguments in favour of libertarianism that is,
the maximisation of individual liberty. It explores the justifications behind
the will to individual freedom vis--vis the instrumentalist logic of the
neoliberal market. It explains how the schooling market accommodates
the private interests of the family while simultaneously promoting a
doctrine of efficiency by turning education into a commoditised quasimarket.
The Role of Individual Rights
Modern systems of liberal democracy are fundamentally committed to
the protection of individual rights, including the right of choice, as long as
these rights do not infringe upon those of others. The influential liberal
theorist, John Rawls, held freedom of thought, and by extension, free
choice of occupation (and training), to be prerequisites for the rational
conception and pursuit of the common good in society (Rawls, 1993).
Neoliberalism privileges and in some cases endorses the sanctity of the
private sphere, which is actually a metaphor for a range of options in
which individuals may function as the sole arbiter of choice (Brighouse,
2000, p. 10). Proponents of school choice, such as David Hargreaves, have
often articulated the libertarian view that the state should not deny
choice to those who want it, unless there are very powerful grounds for
doing so (Walford, 2006, p. 9). The suggestion that parents should not be
able to exercise some measure of control over the values that guide their
childs education, and will therefore be volitionally incapable of securing

the best schooling possible for their child, is understandably invidious. We

can surmise that the age-old institution of the family, which includes the
parental right to raise their child in the childs own best interests, rests
firmly in the private sphere, and that any attempt to dislodge it will be
rebuffed and rendered impracticable by conservatives. The restriction of
choice runs counter to the tenets of libertarianism and fuels the
perception that the state is interfering with the private lives of its citizens.
The Role of Instrumentalism
The dominant educational discourse today is instrumentalist in nature: it
contends that the purpose of schooling is to prepare individuals to enter a
diverse labour market that requires advanced skills, specialised
knowledge, and the ability to solve problems within a disciplinary
framework (Furlong and Cartmel, 2009, p 7). This is reflected in the
Gonski reports fixation on employment and earnings and academic
performance in international benchmarking (Gonski et al., 2011, p. 8).
This vision of education is necessarily concerned with metrics that hold
predictive capability for Australias economic future, and is therefore
subordinate to the wider political economy that operates within the state.
Advocates of the free market have typically centred their arguments on
the efficiency of the liberal system. Organisations that have been
privatised or semi-privatised are required to be more transparent with
expenditure and accountable to their clients in terms of value for money.
In the case of school choice, product differentiation is made on the basis
of offering a better quality education, which commands greater demand
and possibly higher fees from knowledgeable consumers (Walford, 2006).
Others argue that redistributive ambitions produce a drag on economic
growth and creates inefficiencies that represent an opportunity cost
(Brighouse, 2000, p. 30-31). In other words, schools that receive funding
from the government have a moral responsibility to streamline their
expenditure of resources, as there are other competing demands within a
limited budget. In the course of its development, the British
comprehensive school has been vilified by academics who believe that its

forced homogeneity has led to a lowering of academic standards for all

children, whereas system of free choice would accomplish precisely the
opposite (Cox and Dyson, 1970). A system of selection in a market would
allow for a diversification of schools that may better meet the multifarious
needs of children.
These liberal discourses have resonated strongly in the Australian
climate, which has experienced a shift in attitudes and class practices
towards the role of public institutions. The 1970s was the significant
decade in which the two major political parties sought to recast the
broad middle class as battlers and consumers, who were then gifted
with the freedom to select a style of education that granted the
appropriate academic and social credentials for their children in an
increasingly competitive world (Campbell, Proctor & Sherington, 2009,
p. 25-53). Equally influential was the relatively novel neoliberal ideology
that the state should encourage entrepreneurship and self-responsibility
for success amongst its citizens by reducing state intervention in the
market (Pusey, 1991). It is self-evident that market competition leads to
winners and losers. Competition between schools to attract consumers
based on the strength of their academic achievements would stimulate
entire departments to improve their practice or face unwanted
consequences. Schools that demonstrate superior academic performance
thus allow their students to accrue educational capital, advantaging them
in their future career prospects.
III. Egalitarian Arguments against Neoliberalism
The countervailing discourse against neoliberalism is that of social
egalitarianism. Its basis, according to Brighouse (2000, p. 124), is founded
in a moral commitment to ensuring fairness in society, because all
individuals in society are inter-dependent on each other to some extent. It
holds that the state should play an active role in reducing the inequity of
outcomes in academic achievement and wealth distribution (Donnelly,
2012, p. 70). Schooling presents as a means with which social cohesion
can be engendered from childhood, by encouraging mutual interaction

between people of diverse backgrounds (Walford, 2006, p. 14). It

advocates social mobility against the politico-economic backdrop
mentioned in the previous section.
When instrumentalism gains hegemonic status in policymaking, it
supplants egalitarian imperatives. Venugopals (2015, p. 172-174)
analysis claims that individual economic incentives and the role of the
market prevail in the narrow logics of organisation of neoliberal systems,
ignoring ultimate ends such as poverty alleviation and education. It also
reduces the yardsticks of success in education to a purely quantitative
exercise, possibly excising parts of the curriculum that are economically
less productive in the process. There is also the accusation that the
instrumentalist discourse in policy has led to an artificial market liberalism
that perpetuates serious funding inequalities between Australian public
and private schools, leading to an exodus from the former to the latter
(Vickers, 2005). Kenways (2013) research into the Gonski report generally
concludes that socioeconomic advantage is positively correlated to
academic success, and that the reverse is true as well. This is because the
various forms of capital that privileged parents possess allows their
children extra learning opportunities that they use to outperform their
peers (Chiu and Khoo, 2005, p. 587). An OECD report reinforces the
observation that granting full parental choice in school selection results
in the segregation of students and generates greater inequities across
education systems (2012, p. 92). This creates a two-tiered polarisation of
good and bad schools that become compounded over time should the
state refuse to intervene, as families with the wherewithal to relocate their
children to a prestigious school invariably do so.
It is also fallacious, however, to view education as an entirely private
good whose provision is equitably administrated by market individualism
(Wringe, 1994). Education is, from an instrumentalist viewpoint, not only
mutually beneficial but also inseparable from individual interests in a
labour market. This is a simple matter to illustrate, as high-salaried jobs
for the highly educated would not be economically possible without

participants in the labour market also being sufficiently educated to

enable their creation (Brighouse, 2000, p. 42). Education produces goods
that are essential to the public good of stability for the civic polity, but
markets fare poorly at allocating these goods equitably within free
labour markets (Brighouse, 2000, p. 39-41). In The Price of Inequality,
Stiglitz (2013) argues that the continued existence of severe income
disparity is fundamentally inefficient because it has perceptibly negative
effects on the wealthy, too, and that the common good of society would
be better served by a more equitable distribution. There is thus a strong
case for government intervention in the funding of education and the
limitation of parental choice in selecting a school for their children.
IV. Equity and the Responsibilities of the State
There exists a clear relation between education and human
emancipation, but as I have shown, political ideologues tend to take
opposing stances on the degree of freedom of choice individuals should be
afforded, especially when the integrity of a public good is at stake. While
individual freedom can theoretically be decoupled from egalitarianism, the
reality of neoliberal policy is that any gains in the former imperative will
usually be accompanied by a loss of the latter. This is true especially of
education. To pigeonhole these differences of opinion into their right and
left camps, however, is oversimplifying the issue. Most proponents of
egalitarianism are not in favour of a regression into Soviet-style
enforcement of material equality to ensure fairness. And practically
speaking, even the most vocal supporters of market liberalism will
concede that a measure of state intervention is necessary for all systems
to function effectively (Walford, 2006, p. 214). Neoliberalism should thus
be understood as a compromise; a new form of classical liberalism with
controls. It is not to be expropriated or misinterpreted as a justification,
both morally and economically, for the state to relinquish its educational
responsibilities towards its citizens. Thus the relevant questions to ask
next are, What does equity mean? and What exactly are these
responsibilities?

Equity is sometimes confused with equality, but these terms have subtle
differences. Equality is a quantifiable state: for example, Jack and Jane
both have five apples each. Equity, on the other hand, is an ideological
construct, defined by fairness or justice in the way people are treated
(Merriam-Webster, 2015). In its most basic sense, equity is achieved when
personal and social circumstancesare not obstacle[s] to achieving
educational potential, and when a minimum standard of education,
typically encompassing literacy and numeracy, is freely available to all
(OECD, 2007, p. 10). This position, in short, supports equality of
opportunity, albeit the rewards in such a system may be structurally
unequal (Furlong and Cartmel, 2009, p. 3). That is to say, just as a worker
may rationally expect that his material rewards are commensurate with
his productivity, pathways in education are similarly determined in
meritocratic fashion. Such a system must account for learner diversity and
recognise that not all aptitudes are quantifiable in the positivistic sense
(e.g. standardised testing), but that is a topic best left to another paper.
Another definition of equity, equality of outcome, which can be attributed
to Rawls (1971, pp. 73-74) envisions the equal distribution of all social
primary goods not just opportunity, but also income and wealth as
an eventual endpoint reminiscent of utopian socialism. The central tenet
that features in such a view is that any reward system which
advantages superior performance results in a form of distribution that
favours those with pre-existing advantages, regardless of whether these
advantages take the form of innate talent or cultivated effort (Furlong and
Cartmel, 2009, p. 4). This phenomenon inexorably results in the
reproduction of socioeconomic inequalities and runs counter to the
intention of closing the gap.
A salient observation about the Gonski report is that it leans towards the
former interpretation of equity: it accepts that students do not possess
identical abilities and will not achieve the same outcomes (2011, p.
138). It also goes on to state that an individuals ability to succeed in
schooling is not inherently tied, and should not be tied, to their

socioeconomic status (ibid.). More resources must thus be allocated to the

socioeconomically disadvantaged party, relative to those who are
advantaged, to prevent the escalation of disparity: Governments must
also, through addressing the facets of disadvantage, ensure that all
children are given access to an acceptable international standard of
education necessary to lead successful and productive lives (ibid.). It is a
responsibility owed to the child such that he or she may be granted the
best possible chance of self-actualisation, i.e. to reach his or her fullest
capacity in the broadest possible terms, regardless of circumstance.
The first obvious objection to this statement, to my mind, is that a
successful life is a nebulous concept one may read volumes on Plato
and still be no closer to an objective definition; and if success is measured
by productivity then it runs the risk of instrumentalism. It is difficult to
reason why one might undertake to produce something of no use-value. It
can be concluded that the condition of success is therefore sentimental;
what really matters is funding is directed to ensure that a minimum
standard of academic achievement to reverse the decline in the PISA
rankings, and/or increase individual contribution to the economy.
The second objection stems from the Rawlsian argument for equalising
outcomes: how is an equitable distribution of limited resources to be
reached, if students are genetically possessed of differing aptitudes and
require different levels of resourcing? The academic literature quoted thus
far have accepted the premise that the socioeconomically disadvantaged
are systematically no less talented that than the advantaged
(Brighouse, 2000, p. 131). To aim for equal prospects of academic success
between children of vastly differing intellectual aptitudes, though, would
require neglect of the resourcing of the extremely talented if not them,
then who else (ibid.). To mistakenly pursue such a policy would undermine
academic achievement by dis-incentivising the exertion of effort and the
cultivation of talent for greater rewards (ibid.). We must accept the logical
conclusion that the gifted may require additional resources to selfactualise, and not less. This theory may be reified in a stratified education

system where the intellectual elite have license to extra funding by fiat,
but this could be viewed as inequitable by some.
I have expended much energy thus far in analysing the concept of
equity, funding and school choice through the lens of political and
economic philosophies. I have done so to preclude the navet of
examining educations moral imperatives in a void, when it is in fact
inextricably part of a larger and more immediate reality. The next section
will examine the recommendations that the Gonski report makes to the
state in order to achieve equity, and the public reactions to these
recommendations, in light of these objections.
V. Positive Reactions to Gonski
For reasons of brevity, I have declined to list or critique all forty-one
recommendations contained within the report, especially when most of
the recommendations cannot be reasonably objected to, e.g.
improvements in the clarity of the funding structure. Here, I reproduce
some of the positive reactions to the Gonski report and analyse them
according to the framework I have proposed above.
The Egalitarian Argument for Gonski
While it is acknowledged that the state cannot totally eradicate
educational equalities, the policy it promulgates plays a significant role in
reducing them. Sections of the media have tacitly voiced approbation for
the Gonski reforms by protesting the funding cuts that are to be made to
the policy in 2018. The Age has reported widespread disaffection with the
federal government, noting that schools would struggle to come to terms
with the loss of revenue. In particular, the Australian Education Union
opined that because up to 20 per cent of schools will fail to meet
minimum resourcing standards, entrenched disadvantage would remain
(Preiss, B. & Cook, H., 2014).
The response released by the Independent Schools of Victoria echoes the
Gonski view that funding should move to a needs based, sector-blind

model where funding [is] centred on students and not the sector or
locality of schools, as there may be pockets of socioeconomically
disadvantaged families even in the most privileged areas (Independent
Schools Victoria, 2011, p. 31). In addition, while parental contributions to
non-government schools are expected to be larger on a per-child basis
than that of government schools, it must also be realised that in some
cases these parents may only have a limited capacity to make a financial
contribution (Gonski et al., 2011, p. 150). Some concerns have been
raised about how the proportion of student-allocated funding that
promotes equity outweigh[s] core grants that should be available to all
students (Independent Schools Victoria, 2011, p. 42). The answer lies in
the fact that socioeconomically disadvantaged students require
significantly greater amounts of funding to counteract this entrenched
lack of resources although the degree of funding needed is still an
undetermined manner. The additional financial costs are derived from the
need for additional materials, individualised learning, specialist teachers,
staff development, consultants and the like (Shepherd, 2013, p. 23).
Shepherd (2013, p. 27) also noted that based on the falling rankings of
schools with a low ICSEA value, an equity loading of around 0.3 is
inadequate to neutralise the socio-educational disadvantage, and
highlights the need for targeted research in the Australian context to
develop a more accurate formula for loading. Should the equity loading
formula be correctly determined and implemented in the future, this would
theoretically result in a greater concentration of students around the mean ICSEA value.
Teachers would have access to more educational resources in the classroom, and be better
able to address the disadvantages of children from low-income families.
The Instrumentalist Argument for Gonski
There is also a strong economic case for implementing the Gonski
reforms from the side of instrumentalist discourse. Cobbold (2013, p. 18)
cites that the future costs incurred from supporting poorly educated adults
who face higher unemployment, lower lifetime earnings, lower
productivity, less taxation revenue and higher health care and crime

costs may outstrip the initial cost of providing them an equitable, highquality education. A Danish study reveals that the net gain in academic
achievement from allocating additional funding to disadvantaged students
is about three times as high as for the average student, giving support to
the cost-benefit rationale (Heinesen & Graverson, 2005). The technical
explanation for this phenomenon can be explained through economic
theory. According to Chiu and Khoo (2005), the law of diminishing
marginal returns suggests that it would be comparatively more productive
in cost-benefit terms to invest in students who are financially
disadvantaged as opposed to those who are advantaged. We can thus
extrapolate that adopting the Gonski reforms will result in a statistical gain
in various forms of standardised testing which ensures greater parity
with our neighbouring countries, and allows Australia to be more
competitive in the knowledge economy.
VI. Lingering Issues with Gonski: An Academic Perspective
This section with begins with one caveat: the academics whose
dissenting opinions are cited here may disagree with only particular
aspects of the Gonski report, and not its overarching thrust. Some of them
show general support for the reforms. Nevertheless, I have found it fruitful
to examine their reservations, because they provide a glimpse of the
implications of following through with or abandoning select portions of
Gonski.
The contention that the privatisation of schools raises academic
standards remains controversial in Australia, with contradictory results
from research further complicating the issue. There is, according to
Donnelly (2012, p. 74), a strong and statistically positive association
between private school share and student achievement on the PISA 2003
maths test, even after controlling for the host of student, family and
school background factors. Other academics contest this point. In an
online article, Zyngier (2015) pointed to a study which revealed that
public, Catholic and independent schools with a similar socio-economic
composition have almost no differences in levels of academic

achievement. A more comprehensive American study suggests that the

disparities between privately educated and publicly educated students are
too small to be significant in a controlled test (Braun, Jenkins & Grigg,
2006). I am more inclined to believe that the latter assertion is the more
accurate, if only because of the greater breadth and magnitude of its
sample size, but there is a discernable need for additional research in this
field. Two conclusions may then be drawn: First, as the majority of
research cited in this paper appears to indicate, is that by removing the
factor of socioeconomic background, non-government schools do not
exhibit academic superiority in and of their status as private entities.
Second, it logically follows that the funding inequalities perpetuated in the
quasi-market system are untenable assuming that the students in
question are similarly talented, and that government intervention to
correct this imbalance is beneficial and desirable.
I have elected to pay more attention to Kenways (2013) critique of the
Gonski reforms, as it addresses not only the inequities in funding, but also
in academic selection and school choice. The chief contention of the study
is that the Gonski reforms do not go far enough to address societal
inequity because of the policys commitment to private school funding not
losing a single cent (without adjusting for inflation in the years to come).
The intertwined mechanisms of compounded advantage and disadvantage
have been already been detailed in the third section of this paper, and it
explains that the element of the zero sum game within school choice
(Shepherd, 2015, p. 23). The resourcing issues that low SES schools face
are further exacerbated by an ill repute for poor academic standards.
Kenway (2013, p. 295) illustrates that schools on the lower end of the
spectrum relinquish their brightest pupils through drift to other schools
and trained teachers through high turnover. A lack of educational
attainment in these schools and/or regions creates a microcosm of
economic privation, and from there on the downward spiral continues
(Nous Group, 2011, p. 8). There is the suggestion in the paper, too, that

the bursaries awarded by prestigious non-governmental schools are

perfunctory and limited in number (Kenway, 2013), and that these

privileged institutions have a moral and social responsibility to enrol

underperforming students and demonstrate their quality through student
performance (Nous Group, 2011, p. 9).
Kenways (2013) argument that the Gonski reforms should go above and
beyond addressing financial inequities to curtail academic selection is
seductive, but a challenge must be raised towards its political neutrality. I
contend that the state, should it implement the Gonski reforms, will have
more or less discharged its obligations to the child equitably. The
abolishment of performance stratification, however, is also on Kenways
agenda (Kenway, 2013, p. 298). The first objection I wish to raise is that
the recommendation of placing a low-performing (and in most cases,
modestly talented) student in a high-achieving school is indefensible on
the grounds of merit, so it must follow that the reasons for doing so are
not rooted in the belief that all children should be allowed equal
opportunities to self-actualise. On the contrary, a student who
demonstrates superior potential, but is otherwise encumbered by his
financial circumstances, would be more deserving of that place, both
morally and instrumentally speaking. Secondly, if the body of research has
shown that entrenched educational capital is the primary factor behind
the higher rates of educational attainment in private schools, then it does
not follow that the quality of education that the underperforming,
disadvantaged student receives in such a school will automatically
improve. The obvious counterargument is that the difference in available
resourcing and student talent a name-brand school attracts do, in fact,
improve the quality of education it offers, if only because of these
externalities. If this is the case, then the suggestion that education policy
should preside over the decline in the educational quality of a highperforming school by removing some of its resources, no matter how
economically privileged it is, seems tenuous. Every child, in this case,
would be better served by a system that equitably allocates resources
according to his learning needs and would therefore stand equal
opportunities to lead a successful and productive life (Gonski et al.,
2011, p. 138). To re-iterate my position, I believe, as the Gonski report

recommends, that unequal funding is sometimes necessary to ameliorate

compounded disadvantage, but this should not be utilised as a pretext to
equalise scholastic achievement across the board. Another compromise
should be found. The objective of equalising outcomes not opportunity
is in fact a veiled socialist motivation, and its place in educational doctrine
must be seriously questioned. Wealth redistribution is not an obligation
pertaining to the educational needs of the child it is a political
consideration owed to society.
VII. Concluding Remarks
Three preponderant discourses on school choice and equity have been
outlined in this paper: that of the libertarian, that of the instrumentalist,
and that of egalitarianism. These competing imperatives must be
understood dialectically and as part of a wider systemic relation in society.
Improving equity of funding between individual students, regardless of
school sector, is a priority of the Gonski reforms. This should not be
misunderstood as granting license to promote equality of outcomes.
Furthermore, East Asian countries operating in an authoritarian political
climate, and therefore have state-centralised funding systems with low
levels of privatisation, also suffer from massive inequalities of wealth (The
World Factbook, 2011). We should thus understand that a funding reform
solves only part of the puzzle in addressing issues of social equity.

Bibliography
Braun, H.; Jenkins, F. & Griggs, W. (2006). Comparing Private Schools and
Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling. Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf
Brighouse, H. (2000). School Choice and Social Justice. New York: Oxford
University Press
Campbell, C.; Proctor, H & Sherington, G. (2009). School Choice: How
Parents Negotiate the New School Market in Australia. New South Wales:
Allen & Unwin
Chiu, M. & Khoo, L. (2005). Effects of resources, inequality and privilege
bias on achievement: Country, school and student level analyses.
American Educational Research Journal, 42(4):575603. Retrieved from:
http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkpisa/output/files/Chiu_Khoo_2005_Effects.
pdf
Cox, C & Dyson, A. (1970). The Black Papers on Education, 1-3. London:
Davis-Poynter
Donnelly, K. (2012). The Fabian fallacies of the Gonski Report. Quadrant,
56(5):70-75. Retrieved from:
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/fullText;dn=2371
87333350638;res=IELAPA
Furlong, A & Cartmel, F. (2009). Higher Education and Social Justice.
Berkshire: Open University Press
Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P.
(2011). Review of funding for schooling final report. Retrieved from:
https://docs.google.com/a/monash.edu/viewer?
urlhttp://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/Documents/Revie
w-of-Funding-for-Schooling-Final-Report-Dec-2011.pdf
Heinesen, E. & Graversen, B. (2005). The Effect of School Resources on
Educational Attainment: Evidence from Denmark. Bulletin of Economic
Research, 57(2): 109-143. DOI: 10.1111/j.0307-3378.2005.00217.x
Independent Schools Victoria. (2011). Review of funding for schooling
response. Retrieved from:
http://www.is.vic.edu.au/independent/pubs/review_of_funding_for_schoolin
g_response.pdf
Kenway, J. (2013). Challenging inequality in Australian schools: Gonski and
beyond. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(2):
286-308. DOI:10.1080/01596306.2013.770254
Merriam-Webster. (2015). Dictionary: Equity. Retrieved from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity
Nous Group. (2011). Schooling challenges and opportunities: A report for
the review of funding for schooling panel. Melbourne: Melbourne Graduate
School of Education.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007).

No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2012).
Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and
schools. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecd.org/edu/preschoolandschool/equityandqualityineducation
-supportingdisadvantagedstudentsandschools.htm
Preiss, B. & Cook, H. (2014). Schools fear for future as Gonski axed. The
Age. Melbourne: Fairfax Media
Pusey, M. (1991). Economic Rationalism in Canberra. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press
Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press
Shepherd, B. (2015). Equity in Australian Education since the MySchool
Website. Equity, Funding and the Education State. Retrieved from:
http://needtosucceed.org/equity-funding-the-education-state
Stiglitz, J. (2013). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society
Endangers Our Future. New York: W. W. Norton & Company
The World Factbook, CIA. (2011). Distribution of family income Gini
index. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/fields/2172.html
Venugopal, R. (2015). Neoliberalism as concept. Economy and Society,
44(2):165-187, DOI: 10.1080/03085147.2015.1013356
Vickers, M. (2005). In the common good: The need for a new approach to
funding Australias schools. Australian Journal of Education Australian
Council for Educational Research, 49(3). Retrieved from:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Australian-JournalEducation/139433519.html
Walford, G. (2006). Markets and Equity in Education. London: Continuum
Whitty, G. (1997). Creating quasi-markets in education. Review of
Research in Education, 22:3-47. DOI: 10.3102/0091732X022001003
Wringe, C. (1994). Markets, values and education. Education and the
Market Place. London: Falmer