EDF 5806 Assessment Task Two: Research EssayNeoliberalism and the Gonski Review: Examining the Role of the State in Equity and FundingJustin 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 quasi-market. 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 self-actualise, 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, high-quality 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 high-performing 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.

BibliographyBraun, 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.pdfBrighouse, H. (2000). School Choice and Social Justice. New York: Oxford University PressCampbell, C.; Proctor, H & Sherington, G. (2009). School Choice: How Parents Negotiate the New School Market in Australia. New South Wales: Allen & UnwinChiu, 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.pdfCox, C & Dyson, A. (1970). The Black Papers on Education, 1-3. London: Davis-PoynterDonnelly, 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=237187333350638;res=IELAPAFurlong, A & Cartmel, F. (2009). Higher Education and Social Justice. Berkshire: Open University PressGonski, 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/Review-of-Funding-for-Schooling-Final-Report-Dec-2011.pdfHeinesen, 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.xIndependent Schools Victoria. (2011). Review of funding for schooling response. Retrieved from: http://www.is.vic.edu.au/independent/pubs/review_of_funding_for_schooling_response.pdfKenway, J. (2013). Challenging inequality in Australian schools: Gonski and beyond. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(2): 286-308. DOI:10.1080/01596306.2013.770254Merriam-Webster. (2015). Dictionary: Equity. Retrieved from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equityNous 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 PublishingOrganisation 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.htmPreiss, B. & Cook, H. (2014). Schools fear for future as Gonski axed. The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax MediaPusey, M. (1991). Economic Rationalism in Canberra. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressRawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressRawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University PressShepherd, 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-stateStiglitz, J. (2013). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. New York: W. W. Norton & CompanyThe World Factbook, CIA. (2011). Distribution of family income Gini index. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.htmlVenugopal, R. (2015). Neoliberalism as concept. Economy and Society, 44(2):165-187, DOI: 10.1080/03085147.2015.1013356Vickers, 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-Journal-Education/139433519.htmlWalford, G. (2006). Markets and Equity in Education. London: ContinuumWhitty, G. (1997). Creating quasi-markets in education. Review of Research in Education, 22:3-47. DOI: 10.3102/0091732X022001003Wringe, C. (1994). Markets, values and education. Education and the Market Place. London: Falmer