introduction - global village school€¦ · web viewgiven that all sample schools had entries...
TRANSCRIPT
Masters of Teaching Research Thesis: The Alternative Response to Disadvantage in Education
By Eric Woodward
University of Melbourne: Melbourne Graduate School of Education
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................3Context......................................................................................................................................................................3Research Question.....................................................................................................................................................5Key Terms..................................................................................................................................................................5Aims...........................................................................................................................................................................6Significance of the Study............................................................................................................................................6
Literature Review...........................................................................................................................................................7Education and Inequity..............................................................................................................................................8
Systemic Inequity..................................................................................................................................................8Internal Inequity....................................................................................................................................................9Constructivist and Critical Theory Perspectives.....................................................................................................9Can School’s Make a Difference?.........................................................................................................................10An Equitable Education System?.........................................................................................................................10
Alternative Education..............................................................................................................................................11Measuring Success of Alternative Models...........................................................................................................11Problematising ‘alternative’: post-industrial educational theory and progressive education..............................13
Domains of Progressive Practice..............................................................................................................................14Methodology................................................................................................................................................................16
Obtaining the Sample..............................................................................................................................................16Alternative Schools..............................................................................................................................................17Disadvantaged Student Populations....................................................................................................................17Existing Data on Attainment................................................................................................................................18
Establishing the ‘Alternative Domains’ through Documentary Analysis..................................................................18Data..............................................................................................................................................................................19
Chosen sample.........................................................................................................................................................19Alternative Schools..............................................................................................................................................19Disadvantage.......................................................................................................................................................20
Quantitative Data.....................................................................................................................................................20Graphs and Trends..............................................................................................................................................21
Qualitative Data.......................................................................................................................................................23Discussion....................................................................................................................................................................25
Aim 1: A New Framework?......................................................................................................................................25Aim 2: Might Alternative Practices Affect Attainment of Disadvantaged Youth?.....................................................27Aim 3: Any Trends and Patterns For Further Research?...........................................................................................28Two Case Studies.....................................................................................................................................................30
Yuille Park Community College............................................................................................................................30Cranbourne Secondary........................................................................................................................................30
Assumptions and Limitations.......................................................................................................................................31Methodological........................................................................................................................................................31Conceptual...............................................................................................................................................................32
Recommendations for Further Studies........................................................................................................................33Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................35References...................................................................................................................................................................36Appendix......................................................................................................................................................................43
Introduction
Context
On the surface, Australia is conservative when it comes to adolescent education. Our recent educational
history has been dominated by increased standardisation with the publicization of NAPLAN data on the
‘My School’ website in 2010 and the endorsement of a National Curriculum by the Education Council in
2015 (ACARA). Schools have been feeling the pressure to cover vast amounts of content and ensure high
performance on these tests which has led to increased direct instruction and other traditional methods as
well as some questionable practices including the marginalisation of underachieving students (Cook &
Jacks, 2017). Concurrently, there is growing pressure on teachers to address an ever-increasing list of
social issues such as youth radicalisation, gender and sexuality, mental health and respectful
relationships. Meanwhile, successive governments continue to debate the merit of needs-based funding
six years after the Gonski review (2011), and demonstrate a growing appetite for quantitative ‘evidence-
based’ research upon which to base their policies. The victims of this uncertainty and generalising are our
most vulnerable young people who are falling further behind their peers; a fact that only sporadically gets
the attention of the media (McKenzie & Baker, 2017; Smith, 2017). But all is not lost. Although it is
tempting to look longingly towards countries such as Finland who do not share our inequity issues
(Vukovic, 2016), our context is unique and perhaps if we look below the surface we might find that work
is already being done to innovate and create alternative models that respond to Australia’s social and
educational challenges.
The challenge this paper responds to is that of how we measure the seemingly intangible impacts of such
models upon our disadvantaged young people, capturing and sharing what works with a mainstream
system that needs a new way forward. Alternative education providers have felt frustrated by measures
of their success which they feel fail to capture the complex and holistic work they attempt to undertake in
educating their students, particularly when they target disadvantaged or marginalised communities
(Carter, 2015). There is a very real danger of dismissing these models outright based on unfair
comparisons to mainstream providers. Indeed, recent American studies have used drop-out rates to claim
that alternative education is ‘short-changing’ students, but failed to control for variables such as vastly
different funding and socio-economic background levels of students (Pierce, 2017). Moreover, the
Australian education landscape is starkly different to other countries, where the term ‘alternative
education’ refers to a rather diverse range of schools as this study will show. However, there may be
common practices within alternative models as part of a global movement away from neo-liberal or
traditional forms of schooling and this is where further inquiry may yield richer results and analysis.
As a student, integration-aid, after hours’ carer, teacher and educational consultant, I have seen the sort
of diversity of practice that occurs across a very divided Australian educational system. From a primary
school that boycotted NAPLAN, to a very traditional private school whose principal selling point was its
high ATAR results, to an International Baccalaureate public high school, and finally, to working with highly
alternative schools who cater to the wealthiest families all the way down to a school for youth in
detention. I have become very interested in the outcomes of different educational models, for whom do
they work and on what basis do we come to these conclusions? When working across the full breadth of
our education system, the fundamental role that schools play in either mitigating or perpetuating the
influence of student background becomes increasingly apparent. The need to correct unfair privilege is
not a new notion in the progressive education movement (Dewey, 2004, p. 120), but as a relatively young
practitioner, I hope that this research may contribute to the growing dialogue between educational
providers across the public-private and alternative-mainstream divides, and indeed, improve the capacity
of my own and other teacher’s practice to correct unfair privilege in our classrooms. This thesis is
structured in a way that is intended to highlight the systematic yet exploratory approach undertaken by
the researcher. Beginning with an examination of the contexts of disadvantage and alternative education
and the conceptual and practical aims of the study, what follows is a targeted investigation of previous
research in this and related fields, narrowing down to recent and relevant studies that assist greatly in
framing of the methods of this study. Data is then presented in a range of forms with the aim of
communicating to a wide range of audiences both within the education profession itself as well as
communities and organisations more broadly with a vested interest in social policy and reform. Finally, an
in-depth discussion considers the findings and their limitations, providing insights and pathways for
further investigation as well as leading to some practical academic and industry recommendations.
Research Question
How might alternative education impact socio-economic disadvantage?
Key Terms
Mainstream education: refers to the form of neo-liberal western education which has dominated the
industrial and modern eras (Smyth 2012). It is interchangeable with the terms ‘traditional’, ‘industrial’,
‘institutional’ and ‘neo-liberal’. It is commonly associated with practices such as teacher-centric
instruction, timetables and controlled classroom environments and punitive behaviour management.
Alternative education: reflects the current public discourse relating to educational providers and models
that are not seen as mainstream. This paper discusses the problems of such a limited definition of
‘alternative’.
Post-Industrial education theory: an educational theory that offers a critique of the industrial or
mainstream model of education that has dominated the modern era.
Progressive education: A new term proposed by this study to refer to an educational model that
undermines socio-economic divisions by adopting a range of explorative post-industrial practices
Aims
This study takes a strengths-based approach, underpinned by a constructivist epistemology. It posits that
constructing a new framework based on identified good practice will further these practices across our
educational system. This study has the following aims.
Aim 1: To propose a new framework for defining, identifying and evaluating alternative practices in
secondary school education.
Aim 2: To consider the possible effects of alternative practices on the attainment of disadvantaged
youth.
Aim 3: To explore trends or patterns that could lead to further study into alternative educational
models.
Significance of the Study
It needs to be noted that this is an exploratory study rather and one that is seeking to establish causal
relations that would enable system-wide generalisations, because it was limited to the use of publicly
available data only. Despite this, its significance lies in the fact that conceptually and methodologically it
moves into new territory. It is designed with the hope of demystifying the notion of ‘alternative
education’ for policy makers and mainstream practitioners. This is significant because if alternative
models can be included in debates and analysis of what does and does not work in education, then these
debates will be richer and all schools will benefit from innovative and exploratory practices. In other
words, what is deemed as ‘alternative’ may just become mainstream. Indeed, we are seeing many
mainstream schools adopting practices that their alternative counterparts have been implementing for
decades, yet ‘alternative’ remains on the margins and clouded by stereotypes.
Despite The Victoria Institute’s (Te Riele, 2014) work mapping all Flexible Learning Options and programs
in Victoria, we do not yet have a comprehensive understanding of the schools in this state that adopt
alternative practices to meet the needs of our disadvantaged young people. Moreover, this data is out of
date as many of the options referred to in this study no longer operate. While programs come and go,
schools are more stable and cater to most of our disadvantaged youth (Cobbold, 2011), so understanding
what interventions are taking place at this level is crucial. This study also builds upon Ladd’s (2014) study
into alternative schools because it includes schools based on what practices they undertake rather than
how they identify. Ladd used only schools that self-identified as alternative, which would no doubt have
excluded various other progressive schools that do not use this label. Finally, while O’Gorman et al.
(2016) helped identify consistent practices in alternative schools, they did not use this to form a new
definition of the term. Therefore, using practices these and other studies identify, I propose the
formation of a far more nuanced and measurable definition of ‘alternative’ than simply ‘not mainstream’.
Importantly, this study does not attempt to propose what a system where student background is not the
principal driver of achievement might look like. There are numerous countries (Finland, Iceland, Sweden)
that have a far smaller, indeed insignificant inequity levels compared to ours (Schmidt, Burroughs, Zoido,
& Houang, 2015, p. 375). However, they may have other factors at play such as their social demographics.
Although a comparison would be useful, it is beyond the scope of this study, which is limited to the
Australian context. Also, this study cannot obtain internal school data such as individual student
background and achievement outcomes as this would require ethics approval and an extended research
period.
Literature ReviewIn order to narrow the scope of this study, it was necessary to focus in on two key discourses: educational
inequity and alternative educational models. The process began with the exploration of key educational
theories pertaining to education, social justice and inequality, which highlighted the historical significance
of this issue. I then identified seminal works in both the Australian context, and alternative education
globally. I was also able to locate some recent literature that bridges the two discourses of alternative
education and inequity. It was necessary for studies to be contextually relevant and methodologically
sound for them to be included in the review. It became clear when conducting this review that alternative
education may be playing a significant part in the broader challenge for education to be a force that
dismantles social inequities. While there is a large body of evidence that highlights the dilemmas of
inequity in education, this review revealed the dearth of evidence-based solutions to such dilemmas. It is
easy to say that the system we have is broken. It is less simple, but still common, to proclaim that there is
a vested interest in maintaining a classist, racist, or to coin Friere (2009), a ‘banking model’ of education.
Very few, it seems, have attempted the daunting task of proposing a new system altogether. This
strengths-based study attempts to shift the focus from what does not work, something that is still worth
discussing, to what practices and approaches might work and how we could verify that they are working
to counteract the forces of educational inequity.
Education and Inequity
The discourse around education and inequity is underpinned by a vast body of research, possibly because
it deals with a fundamental issue of education; that of its purpose. Within this discourse there are many
questions researchers have endeavoured to address: is there educational inequity and if so what form
does it take? Why is there educational inequity? What are the causes, exacerbators and effects of this
inequity? Is this a problem that education can and ought to resolve? These questions cannot be
comprehensively answered here but they are important in understanding where this study situates itself,
so a summary is needed.
Systemic Inequity
There is consensus that Australia has high educational inequity based on the relatively large (compared to
other OECD countries) achievement gap between students from wealthy and poorer backgrounds
(Martin, 2002; Black, 2006; Demie & Mclean, 2015; Frempong, Ma, & Mensah, 2012; Smyth, 2012).
Furthermore, this gap is not only present between different school systems (most notably public and
private schools: Cobbold, 2011, p. 32), but is especially pronounced within Australian schools (Schmidt et
al., 2015, p. 375). The causes and exacerbators of this inequity are diverse and multi-faceted, occurring at,
and often combining across localised school-based and systemic levels. When considering systemic
causes, Cobbold (2011, p. 32) has linked the fact that low Socio-Economic Status (SES) Australian schools
receive less than half the income per student of high SES private schools which he says explains the vastly
different literacy and numeracy results. Similarly, Goldhaber et al. (2015) found that disadvantaged
students had less access to quality teachers at local and regional levels. Although their data had a limited
definition of ‘teacher quality’ (based on teacher literacy and numeracy test scores and years teaching),
the conclusive nature of their findings are concerning. In addition, Martin (2002) highlighted how school
choice creates the effect of concentrating cohorts of disadvantage within schools, something that has
been shown to perpetuate disadvantage (Frempong et al., 2012, p. 27; Schmidt et al., 2015, p. 381). Links
between achievement and single-parenthood, parenting activities at home and parent work schedules
have also been established (Morsy, Rothstein, & Economic Policy Institute, 2015).
Internal Inequity
In contrast to systemic studies, some have examined localised school-based causes of disadvantage. Of
particular note are recent studies that have devised new measures such as ‘Opportunity To Learn’ (OTL).
Schmidt et al. (2015) define OTL as how long a student is exposed to learning in a particular subject
including things like tracking or ability groupings. This international study accounts for variables to
establish a causal relationship between OTL and achievement (using 2012 PISA data), highlighting a trend
that schools were inadvertently exacerbating disadvantage through offering weaker content and/or less
exposure to content to their students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Similarly, Wilson et al. (2017)
demonstrated through systematic classroom observations, that in New-Zealand, students from low SES
backgrounds and cultural minorities were given fewer opportunities to read complex texts, and received
poorer instructional techniques relating to literacy, which it offered as an explanation for their poorer
literacy results.
Constructivist and Critical Theory Perspectives
Many of these social-justice imbued studies are the consequence of a broader philosophical challenge to
the agenda of western education. Once maligned but now a staple of most teaching degrees,
constructivist and critical theory thinkers have shed light on how the in-built structures of education can
serve class, race and economic agendas. This challenge began as far back as Dewey who spoke of the
violation of democratic education when students are prescribed pathways into work based on the wealth
and social-status of their parents (2004, p. 119). The more radical response to traditional education,
however, began with Bourdieu and Friere. Bourdieu’s notion of ‘symbolic violence’ which he applied to
the French higher-education system, was that pedagogic action reproduces power relations and reflects
the interests of dominant groups or classes (Jenkins, 1992, p. 105). Meanwhile, Paulo Friere, perhaps the
most radical amongst these theorists, referred to western education as a ‘banking model’ through which
‘oppressors’ maintain their control of their ‘oppressed’, both at a teacher-student level as well as an
institutional one (Friere, 2009). Apple has continued this critical theory discourse by focusing on the
economic agenda of education in which schools produce ‘cultural commodities…important to an
economy and increasingly powerful class segments’ (Apple, 2013, p. 83).
Can School’s Make a Difference?
Finally, in response to these theoretical standpoints, there has been a heated debate about the actual
capacity of schools to address societal divisions. The strongest opponent to school-based social
intervention was Bernstein (1970 in Demie & Mclean, 2015, p. 178), who argued that ‘education cannot
compensate for society’. However, if we accept the arguments made above that schools reflect society,
then structural changes may indeed undo social inequalities. Indeed, many modern educational thinkers
agree that for moral and economic reasons, schools can and should address this issue (Demie & Mclean,
2015; Hoxby, 2016; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). These theorists, simply do not accept, as others do, that
‘some win and some lose’ (Jacobs, 2016, p. 314).
An Equitable Education System?
Although it is certainly important to understand what is not working and why when it comes to
addressing educational inequity, and to acknowledge the structural flaws of an industrial model, a key
question is lacking from the movement: what would an education without inequity look like? If we accept
that confronting inequity is education’s only raison d’être, then are we not presupposing that inequity will
always exist and that an interventionist education will always be needed? Perhaps, by striving to conceive
of an education system where cultural, social and economic background are not significant indicators of
success, we may move towards this in a meaningful way. According to an OECD Report (2012), the
highest performing systems globally promote equity and quality together. They focus on ensuring that all
students obtain basic minimum skill levels (ibid. p. 9). A deeper understanding through international and
cross-cultural exchange is warranted but is beyond the scope of this study. This study endeavours to
contribute to this movement within Australia by proposing a way of identifying and evaluating schools
and practices within schools that are moving towards an equitable education. I consider whether we
already have the beginnings of what Friere called ‘liberation education’ (2009) and what Dewey called
‘democratic education’ (2004).
To summarise this portion of the literature review relating to educational inequity. The review has
assisted in establishing that Australia has a large achievement gap between students from advantaged
and disadvantaged backgrounds and there are both internal school factors as well as systemic societal
issues that fuel this. There has been a strong attempt at understanding these factors but solutions-
focused research is less extensive. The research does, however, indicate that schools and school systems
can make a difference to educational inequity.
Alternative Education
It stands to reason that if the ‘traditional’ or ‘industrial’ schooling model which dominates the Australian
system is failing to reduce, or worse, exacerbating the impact of socio-economic disadvantage, then
alternative models may go some way to reversing this trend. For this reason, the second discourse that
was identified for literature review is that of alternative education. It became clear early on that there is
no agreed upon definition of alternative education (Dyson, 2011, p. 182), and rigorous and systematic
research into how these models impact disadvantage are only recently starting to emerge.
Measuring Success of Alternative Models
Perhaps the biggest challenge when attempting to evaluate alternative education is deciding upon a
measure of their effectiveness (Henrich, 2005). By their very nature, experimental practices cannot be
wholly evidence-based or they would not be experimental. Some would argue that there is benefit in
allowing schools to set their own success criteria and that a diversity of foci among alternative schools is
needed to respond to the diverse needs of their student populations. Debates about how to measure
school and student performance are not unique to alternative education models and there is opportunity
for dialogue across the system more broadly. A more united alternative network may add fresh insights to
such debates because without greater consensus on what success for disadvantaged communities looks
like, alternative providers will likely remain on the margins, susceptible to misconceptions and
assumptions. Agreeing upon a measure of success, one that is core to their rehabilitative mission and that
enables comparisons to mainstream providers, will enrich this discourse. Some recent studies have begun
to address this issue, looking both at internal and system-wide measures of success. For example, Dyson
(2011) has used attainment and student-background data to investigate the impact of ‘full service’ and
‘extended schools’ (a group of UK schools open after hours to parents and community members). He
cautioned against ‘dropping a set of externally formulated outcome measures onto these complex
situations’, calling instead for a mixed-method approach (Dyson & Todd, 2010). More recently, Ladd
(2014) used retention rates to analyse differences between alternative programs in Missouri that either
re-integrated students into mainstream schools or that transitioned them out. He maintained that
‘retention of at-risk students…is paramount to [their] success’ (ibid. p. 3). In contrast, O’Gorman et al.
(2016) undertook a meta-analysis of studies in this field and found that alternative schools increased at-
risk student engagement and considered factors that improved retention. Finally, a recent study in
Victoria by The Victoria Institute (2014) identified success measures common in Flexible Learning Options
across the state. These included personal growth and wellbeing, recognition and contribution to
community, attendance and success in learning.
These studies show the diversity of possibilities when it comes to measuring impacts; attainment and
retention rates, wellbeing and engagement levels to name a few. However, there is a clear focus from the
literature on the capacity of these schools to retain and provide ongoing pathways for their students. It is
beyond the scope of this study to create the complex measure that Dyson (2010) called for, however
recommendations around this are discussed in the conclusion. Furthermore, the Victorian Government
does not keep data relating to individual school retention because of the bias it may present due to
transfer of students, international student intake and other factors. This study proposes attainment as an
interim measure of school success.
School attainment or ‘completion’ rates have been shown to be a valid measure that enables
comparisons between alternative and mainstream schools as well as reflecting the above literature
relating to the desire of many alternative education providers to keep students in school and provide
authentic pathways to work and further study. According to the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment
Authority, completion data highlights the ‘success of the school in preparing students for a range of
pathways’ (VCAA, 2017). Furthermore, Frempong et al.'s (2012, p. 27) study highlighted the importance
of schools in promoting and preparing disadvantaged students for post-secondary pathways which
completion of VCAL enables. There is also an extensive body of research that supports this measure not
just in alternative education but across the system. Many studies have shown the negative effects of non-
completion such as a report by the Foundation for Young Australians, which showed that unemployment
was 27% for those who did not proceed past year 10 compared to 14% for those who finished year 12
(Robinson & Lamb, 2012, p. 15). Others have highlighted the broader economic benefits of raising school
completion age (Psacharopoulos 1978) as well as the increased earnings and social independence
(Spiering, 2003 in Hodgson, 2006). Finally, completion of a senior secondary certificate is also a critical
priority for the Council of Australian Governments who have established a target of a 90% completion
rate by 2020 (COAG, 2009).
Problematising ‘alternative’: post-industrial educational theory and ‘progressive education’
A major problem with the term ‘alternative’ education is that it is inherently defined by what it is not.
Studies have highlighted the way that alternative education is a ‘stigmatized space’ for young people
(McNulty & Roseboro, 2009, p. 412). In Australia, ‘alternative’ is often associated with Steiner and
Montessori schools, and with negative stereotypes around ‘wishy washy’ curriculum and literacy deficient
children. Ladd (2014, p. 9) offers a somewhat more positive definition, considering alternative education
as a model ‘designed to accommodate educational, behavioural and/or medical needs of children and
adolescents that cannot be adequately addressed in a traditional school environment’. However, the
concern with these kinds of deficit definitions is twofold. Firstly, they imply that alternative schools are a
last resort when mainstream models fail which is often not the case. Indeed, many families actively seek
out these schools when traditional schools fail them, or indeed, as a reflection of their anti-neo-liberal
educational beliefs. Secondly, they create a dichotomy between two systems of schooling that may in fact
be more similar than would appear. What is in fact more likely to be a spectrum of practices and
pedagogies has therefore been reduced to a simplistic categorisation which is likely to stifle dialogue and
critique at both ends.
There is a growing group of researchers who have offered substitutes to the term ‘alternative’. Their
ideas are based on a challenge to the neo-liberal underpinnings of mainstream education and so could
therefore be labelled as post-industrial education theory1. For example, Smyth (2012, p. 10) denounces
the ‘ghettoization’ effect of neo-liberalism on disadvantaged schools through class-based school choice
and calls for school and system reform based on inclusion, care, and relationships, where curriculum is
‘for life’. He calls these ‘Socially-Just Schools’. Building on this, Roth (2015, p. 328) proposes a ‘de-
institutionalised’ model of schooling, where ‘wild learning’ sees curriculum and grades take a back seat to
innovation and experimentation. There are a range of possible terms including the ones suggested above
and many more; ‘contemporary schools’, ‘village schools’, and ‘revolution schools’. Indeed America, in
attempting to tackle its large inequity issues, created the ‘charter schools’ movement, although these
have been strongly critiqued for in fact worsening inequity (Ravitch, 2015). This study proposes a term
that it hopes will go some way to overcoming the stigma associated with alternative models: ‘progressive
schools’ and ‘progressive education’. The definition for which could be: an educational model that seeks
to undermine socio-economic divisions by adopting a range of explorative practices which challenge neo-
liberal models. The gathering of data from schools in the selected sample of this study relating to how
they identify will assist in ascertaining the viability of this term and its capacity to drive the discourse
forward.
Domains of Progressive Practice
A review of the literature has assisted in the identification of ‘core-practices’ in alternative education that
1 See Key Terms in Introduction
support in the creation of a new framework for defining and evaluating these models. Although reducing
alternative practices to a limited list may not reflect the full gamut of practices, these domains were
consistent with the literature and encompass the most common alternative (now to be called
‘progressive’) practices. Wringley et al. (2012) have called them ‘pedagogies of transformation’ and below
I extend and further refine these domains, where necessary offering more detailed descriptions.
1. Outdoor classrooms or schools, or extensive outdoor education programs (McLaughlin, 2011, p. 15; Roth, 2015)
Foucault (1975 in Roth 2015, p. 317) talks about the attempt by neo-liberal schooling to physically restrain
students in preparation for factory work. Although many schools have outdoor education programs (particularly
private schools who can afford them), outdoor learning environments and programs in progressive schools are
representative of a broader attempt to undo this neo-liberal agenda.
2. Small class sizes (Ladd, 2014; O’Gorman et al., 2016, p. 537)
3. Extended and flexible timetables and access (McLaughlin, 2011, p. 15; O’Gorman et al., 2016; Thomson, 2014; Te
Riele, 2014, p. 6)
Disadvantaged communities may have barriers to accessing school such as students being young carers,
needing to work or being young parents. O’Gorman (2016, p. 537) talks about the propensity of progressive
schools to offer services and provide flexible structures to ensure these barriers are overcome.
4. Inclusive differentiation (not streaming) (McLaughlin, 2011, p. 15; OECD, 2012, p. 89. Roth, 2015, p. 326; Schmidt,
Burroughs, Zoido, & Houang, 2015, p. 372; Te Riele, 2014, p. 62)
Countries that do not have a significant equity gap have been shown to not practice streaming (OECD, 2012)
and studies into progressive education consistently point to its focus on individualised learning within an
inclusive class structure through individual learning plans and differentiation of the curriculum to meet the
academic, social needs and interests of the student.
5. Student-centric learning (projects, inquiry, involvement in curriculum) (Dyson; 2011p. 183, O’Gorman et al., 2016, p.
537)
In opposition to the teacher-centric practices associated with traditional schooling, progressive programs and
schools adopt a myriad of practices that seek to empower and involve students at various levels from
classroom content, to assessment, all the way up to school governance (Dyson, ibid.)
6. Flexible progression (not age-based but needs/competency-based) (Ladd, 2014, p. 81; Thomson and Pennacchia,
2015, p. 6)
Another challenge to traditional schooling is the arbitrariness of age as an indicator for progression. Many
students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, fall behind because of various barriers to
their learning. An age-based system makes that gap very difficult to bridge. Flexible progression may include
competency, interest or needs-based progression.
7. Relationship-based behaviour intervention (Te Riele, 2014, p. 54; Ladd, 2014, p. 82; Thomson, 2014, p. 6; O’Gorman et
al., 2016, p. 545)
All schools aim to promote positive relationships between staff and students. Traditional schools use
punitive measures such as suspensions and detentions to promote desirable behaviours while progressive
providers, often in response to challenging behaviours of some of their students (many from trauma
backgrounds), adopt relationship-based interventions. This might include Restorative Practices (see Blood &
Thorsborne, 2005; McCluskey et al., 2008) and Trauma-Informed Practices (see Cole, Cole, Eisner, Gregory,
& Ristuccia, 2013) which seek to actively model and teach desired behaviours and rebuild important
neurological pathways for these young people.
8. Community service/engagement by students or school linked to community services (Roth & Lee, 2006, p. 31; Te
Riele, 2014, p. 54; Thomson, 2014, p. 6; O’Gorman et al., 2016, p. 542)
Again, most schools have some form of community connection. However, progressive schools consider this
as core to their existence and to the development of their students. Engagement with the community is
often a political act and an attempt to correct broader socio-economic disadvantage at its source. A
nuanced definition of this is offered by Roth and Lee (2006, p.31) who say that community is about
collective responsibility; the school improves the community and the community takes ownership of the
school by providing authentic experiences for students in work and community life.
9. Experiential learning and applied curriculum for life (Wringley et al., 2012, p. 100; Smyth, 2012, p. 13; Te Riele, 2014,
p. 54; Roth, 2015)
Dewey (2013) famously said ‘education is not just preparation for life, education is life itself’. For alternative
education providers, there is a clear motivation to undo the theory heavy agenda of mainstream education
and provide genuine learning experience that are relevant, practical and applicable outside of schooling.
These may include work placements, applied curriculum and community-based projects, and a focus on
experiences rather than theories for learning (Te Riele, 2014).
MethodologyThe data gathering was completed over the course of five weeks, beginning with the identification of
sample schools, followed by the collection of raw data from school websites and publicly available data
sets, and then concluding with the graphing, organisation and interpretation of different key aspects of
the data. This was a mixed methods study involving both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
Qualitative data around the variable of ‘progressiveness’ was obtained through a process of documentary
analysis and then quantified using the proposed domain of progressive practices (see literature review).
Quantitative data was obtained for the variable of ‘attainment’ using post-compulsory completion data
published by the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2016), and for the variable
‘disadvantage’, ICSEA (“Home | My School,” 2016) scores were used. All three variables were then
compared and contrasted using tables, scatter and bubble plots. Basic school data including whether it
was a government or independent school, and how they identified with their alternativeness was also
obtained.
Obtaining the Sample
This study used a purposeful sample of 19 Victorian Secondary Schools. This included 16 government
schools, 2 independent schools and 1 mixed-funding school. These schools were selected not for their
‘typicality’ of a larger population as many purposeful samples do (Opie & Sikes, 2004, p. 104), but because
they directly addressed the objectives of this study. More precisely, they met the following three criteria:
Alternative Schools
Schools that self-labelled as alternative were identified first. This process included Google searches of
‘alternative schools Victoria’2 and searches of databases of Montessori and Steiner schools. (“Schools and
Centres | Montessori Australia Foundation,” 2017; “Steiner Education Australia,” 2017). Montessori and
Steiner are international models recognised as, and often associated with, alternative education in
Australia (“Australian Schools Directory,” 2017). Because, as previously discussed, many schools do not
openly identify as alternative despite adopting many recognised alternative practices3, it was necessary to
delve a little deeper to achieve a sample that more accurately reflected current practices. Te Riele’s
(2014) study, which included some flexible learning programs ‘within schools’, was of assistance as well as
conversations with leading researchers and practitioners in the field of alternative education.
Identification of alternative programs and schools often resulted in locating of partner or similar schools.
This kind of sampling, where locating one participant leads to the next, has been referred to as
‘snowballing’ (Opie & Sikes, 2004, p. 104). The identification of these supposed ‘alternative’ schools was
then supported by documentary analysis which helped to place them into three categories of
identification: ‘Yes’, ‘Somewhat’ and ‘No’. I also chose to include schools that mentioned the
‘reconnecting’ or ‘re-engaging’ of students who had become alienated from ‘mainstream’ schooling
2 Alternative searches included: ‘progressive schools Victoria’, ‘community schools Victoria’3 see ‘Establishing a Progressive Domain’ through Documentary Analysis’ section for details of these practices
which is consistent with literature definitions of ‘alternative’ (Ladd, 2014, p. 9). Usually, this information
was found under the school’s vision, philosophy, mission statement, pedagogy, curriculum or teaching
tabs on their websites or it would not have been considered core to their practice. A small mention of a
‘flexible learning class’ for example was not acceptable. The categories and their associated terms are
outlined in Table 1 in the data section.
Disadvantaged Student Populations
Concurrent to the process of identifying ‘alternative’ schools, was that of ascertaining whether these
schools fit with my chosen measure for the variable of ‘disadvantaged’ being their ICSEA value. I
attempted to limit the list to schools to an ICSEA of <1000 (the national average), but this excluded some
of the only schools in the sample that represented the Steiner and Montessori models, which was
concerning given how they are so often associated with the alternative movement. Therefore, I chose to
extend it to schools with a <1100 ICSEA value. This served the purpose of both removing the extremely
high socio-economic schools (eg: Plenty Valley International Montessori school: ICSEA 1136, 66% top
quartile) while maintaining a representation of Montessori and Steiner in my sample. It is worth noting
that the sample is still dominated by lower than average disadvantage-level schools (15:4).
Existing Data on Attainment
A third criteria that needed to be met by schools was that there was existing data on my chosen measure
of attainment: post-compulsory completion. This data was obtained from the Victorian Curriculum and
Assessment Authority (2016). Given that all sample schools had entries for ‘percentage of VCAL
completion’ while only some had ‘percentage of VCE’ completion, the former was the statistic that was
used. Moreover, this is consistent with Domain 9: Experiential Learning being a focus for progressive
schools. Schools that did not have this data were not included because this would prevent an accurate
and reliable attainment comparison across the sample and to the greater population.
Establishing the ‘Progressive Domains’ through Documentary Analysis
The progressive domains discussed in the literature review were measured through a documentary
analysis of school websites which could be classified as public and visual documents (Merriam, 2014).
Documentary analysis is a well-established methodology that, according to Mogalakwe (2009, p. 221), is
just as good as other forms of qualitative analysis (eg: surveys, in-depth interviews). It is a highly efficient
method and the data is easily accessible and cost-effective (Bowen, 2009, p. 31). An established
framework for working effectively with documentary sources includes: authenticity, credibility,
representativeness and meaning (Scott 1990 in ibid. p. 224). Due to this study being limited to publicly
available data, websites were a valid source of information that met these criteria. School websites are
authentic because they are the school’s most prominent and controlled public and media outlet where
their image is most thoughtfully projected through visuals, text and design to the school and wider
community. Te Riele’s study (2014) of Flexible Learning Options across Victoria also made use of
documentary analysis of school websites. I was careful to ensure that it was the school’s official website
to maintain credibility. In terms of representativeness, documentary analysis has its limitations which are
discussed later, but it is safe to assume that schools will not make public any practices that they are in
fact not doing at least to some degree. Further, that practices or ideologies that are not clearly
mentioned on websites, are unlikely to be core to the school’s operation. Therefore, it is felt that website
analysis is representative of what a school does. Finally, school websites are generally clear and
comprehensible as they are designed with parents and lay people in mind, therefore this criterion for
strong documentary analysis technique is also met.
Data
Chosen sample
Alternative Schools
Te Riele’s (2014) research led to the identification of McClelland Secondary, Diamond Valley Learning
Centre and Cranbourne Secondary. Discussions with the Dusseldorp Forum who worked in collaboration
with Te Riele led to the identification of Big Picture Australia4 whose purpose is to work with ‘innovative’
schools to improve student retention by providing a more ‘relevant’ and ‘individualised’ education (“Our
Purpose | Big Picture Education Australia,” 2017). This lead to the identification of Yea High School and
Croydon Community School.
4 https://www.bigpicture.org.au/
Schools identified with their alternativeness in different ways. For example, McClelland College’s website
states under their ‘what we do different’ tab that it has ‘discarded the factory approach’ and the
‘structuring of flexible learning environments’ is key to their practice (“McClelland College | We do things
differently,” 2017)“. Contrastingly, Berry Street refers to itself as a ‘specialist’ school that provides a
‘specialised adaptation to Australian curriculum’ for students who have found it ‘difficult to learn in a
group setting’ (“Berry Street School,” 2016). This led to the classification of schools’ self-identification as
alternative under the three categories: ‘Yes’, ‘Somewhat’, and ‘No’. The terms used to classify schools and
their frequency is outlined in Table 1.
Identification Key Terms (frequency)
Yes alternative (2) non-traditional (2) non-mainstream (2) do things differently (1)
Somewhat progressive (3) specialist (2) flexible (2) modern (1)
No no mention of any of the above terms
Table 1: Self-Identification with Alternativeness
Disadvantage
The four schools with an above average ICSEA were included for the following reasons. Templestowe
College, although it had the highest ICSEA (1091), was the only Montessori School (or more accurately, it
has a Montessori stream and adopts many Montessori practices across the school). Collingwood College
and Melbourne Rudolf Steiner School represent the Steiner model and Sherbrooke, despite having an
ICSEA of 1004, catered to above average bottom quartile (29%) and lower-middle quartile (33%) student
populations and identified strongly with its alternativeness, so was therefore deemed suitable. ICSEA data
was not available for three schools and this was indicated in the data charts. However, these schools
were included because I could establish that they target or cater mostly to students from disadvantaged
backgrounds. For example, Parkville College provides education to youth in detention, which has been
clearly linked to disadvantaged backgrounds (Bargen, Sanders, Blakemore, Sutherland, & Crellin, 2010).
Quantitative Data
From the sample, a total of 3 schools did not identify at all with their alternativeness, 8 schools identified
somewhat with their alternativeness, and 8 schools identified as being alternative. All identifying schools
were government schools. The average level of alternativeness was 5 out of a possible 9. The highest
score was 7 (2 schools) and the lowest was 3 (2 schools) making the range 5. The average ICSEA value of
the chosen schools was 967.13 (remembering that three schools were excluded as they did not have this
data but were identified as catering to highly disadvantaged students which would bring that average
down). Yuille Park Community College had the lowest ICSEA at 862. The average attainment (VCAL
completion rate) was 76%. Sherbrooke Community School had the highest completion rate at 100% while
Berry Street had the lowest at 23%, making the range of attainment 77%. Looking more specifically at the
progressive practices themselves, the most common practice was ‘experiential learning’ which all 19
schools undertook. The least common was ‘flexible or non-age-based progression’ which only 6 schools
did. More detailed descriptions and visualisations follow.
Graphs and Trends
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Progressiveness vs. Attainment
Progressiveness
Attai
nmen
t(s
tand
ard
devi
ation
)
Figure 1: Progressiveness vs. Attainment vs. School Identification as ‘Alternative’ Scatter Plot (Yes=Green, Somewhat=Yellow,
No=Red)
Figure 1 is a scatter plot that shows the attainment of sampled schools (measured by standard deviation
from the mean of the whole population of Victorian schools which is 82% post-compulsory VCAL
completion), against their ‘progressiveness’ score (a sum of the factors composing the Domain of
Progressive Practices with a possible total of 9). There are three identifiable outliers which, if left in,
create a slight (but not statistically significant) negative correlation between Attainment and
Progressiveness. However, if removed there is a strong positive correlation. 9 of the schools achieve
above average attainment, 1 school equals the average and 9 schools achieve below average attainment
with 3 being well below average. From the sample, therefore, 50% of schools are above average and 50%
below average attainment compared to the broader population. Figure 1 also represents the spread of
the three levels of school’s identification with their alternativeness represented in colour.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-65
-55
-45
-35
-25
-15
-5
5
15
25
5
20
5
399
63
57 63
5
49
77
3
67
3 3
3
125
48
138
Progress iveness, Attainment and Dis -advantage in Sample of Victor ian
Schools
Progressiveness
Attai
nmen
t
Figure 2. Progressiveness, Attainment and Disadvantage Bubble Plot. Bubble Size=disadvantage level, Red bubble=>1000 ICSEA
(advantaged school), green bubble=no data on disadvantage
Parkville College PC
Sydney Road Community School SRCS
Berry Street BS
McClelland College MC
Yea High School YHS
Croydon Community School CCS
Kensington Community High KCHS
School
Cranbourne Secondary (Young
Parents Education)
CS
Diamond Valley Learning Centre DVLC
Rutherglen High School (Alpine
School)
RHS
The Pavilion School (Charles la
Trobe Preston)*
TPS
Sherbrooke Community School SCS
Oakwood School OS
Collingwood College CC
Templestowe College TC
Melbourne Rudolf Steiner School MRSS
Northern Bay College NBC
Mount Alexander College MAC
Yuille Park Community College YPC
Figure 2.1 Schools + Initials Used in Figure 2
Figure 2 is a bubble plot that compares all three variables of this study. Progressiveness (the sum of the
progressive domains of practice) is plotted against attainment (a standard deviation from the mean of
82% completion) using the X and Y axis, while disadvantage is represented by the size of the bubble (a
standard deviation from the mean ICSEA value of 1000). Each bubble is labelled with its initials to identify
which school it represents which can be seen in Figure 2.1. Colours are used to represent advantaged
schools (>1000 ICSEA=red) and schools without ICSEA data (green). The graph highlights three outliers
(TPS, DVLC and BS). If we ignore these outliers, we can see a clear positive correlation between
progressiveness and attainment similar to Figure 1. We can also see that disadvantaged schools are
relatively spread across the chart unless we assume that the three schools without data (PC, DVLC, BC)
are high disadvantage in which case there is a grouping of disadvantaged schools towards the higher
progressiveness side of the X axis.
Qualitative DataDomain Description No. of
schools
Text (frequency)
Domain 1: outdoor
classrooms,
environments,
schools or extensive
outdoor education
program
8 outdoor
education
program (4)
kitchen
garden (3)
school camps
all year levels
(3)
farm (3) revegetation
projects (1)
outdoor
classroom (1)
Alpine
school (1)
Domain 2: small class
sizes
11 small class
sizes (5)
small
school (2)
high teacher-
student ratio
(3)
maximum
class size <15
(3)
Domain 3:
extended/flexible
timetables or access
11 multiple
campuses
(3)
longer day
(3)
flexible
timetable (3)
accessible
education (2)
weekends (2) open
enrolment
times (1)
young
parent
program (1)
holidays (1) flexible
program
(1)
Domain 4: inclusive
differentiation (not
streaming)
10 all students
have
individual
learning
plans (7)
differentiati
on (3)
students self-
select classes
based on
interest (2)
no streaming
or advanced
classes (1)
Domain 5: student-
centric learning
(projects, inquiry,
interest-based curric
vs. direct instruction)
12 projects/
inquiry (4)
student-
centric/
student-
centred (3)
student-led
conferences
(3)
students co-
design
curriculum (3)
curriculum
based on
student
interest/need
(2)
student voice
and
autonomy (2)
student-
focused not
content-
focused (1)
Domain 6: flexible
progression (not age-
based)
6 negotiated
program (1)
students
decide pace
of program
(1)
needs-based
study
program (1)
readiness-
based
progression
(2)
abandoning
year levels (1)
vertical
classes (1)
subjects
offered
across year
levels (2)
Domain 7:
Relationship-based
behaviour
intervention
8 unconditio
nal positive
regard (2)
restorative
practices/m
ediation (2)
strong/
close/
respectful
relationships
(2)
trauma
informed
practice (2)
group
wellbeing
sessions (2)
positive
behaviour
teaching/
modelling (1)
motivation
al
interviewin
g (1)
non-
punishmen
t models
(1)
Domain 8:
Community service by
students or school
integrated with
community services
8 school
facilities
open to
community
use (eg:
theatre,
café) (3)
regular
participatio
n in
community
events (eg:
markets)
(2)
school part of
NGO/ Charity
(2)
uses
community
facilities (2)
community
service (2)
NGOs/
Charities visit
school to
provide
services (1)
Domain 9:
Experiential learning
and applied
19 VCAL + VET
(10)
hands
on/practica
l skills
VCAL only (6) learning life
skills (6)
work
experience
(2)
career/
pathways
counselling
apprentices
hips (2)
internships
(1)
VET only
(1)
curriculum for ‘life’ learning
program (8)
(2)
Table 2: Alternative Domain Data
Table 2 shows the text headings or topics that were referenced from school websites to ascertain
whether that school partook in the various domains of alternative practice or not, as well as their
frequency. These are paraphrased from the actual text which can been seen in the Appendix Item 2. For
example, for Domain 2: small class sizes, 5 schools referred directly to their ‘small class sizes’ on their
websites. In contrast, for Domain 3: flexible access, 1 school referred to a ‘young parent program’ to
support flexible access. This table also shows the domains that had the highest and lowest number of
schools practicing them. Domain 9 was present for all 19 schools in the sample and was the highest
frequency, while Domain 6 was the lowest as it was only present in 6 schools. Domains 3 and 9 also had
the largest diversity of practices within their domains highlighting that schools undertake this domain
quite differently. Conversely, Domains 2 and 4 had the lowest amount of practices within them
highlighting their more uniform nature.
DiscussionAlthough the small sample chosen for this study does not allow us to make broad causational conclusions
or generalisations, the data has proven rich enough to enable the achievement of the aims of this study
outlined in the introduction.
Aim 1: A New Framework?
Although a purposeful sample was chosen, it was not clear initially whether many of these ‘core practice’
domains that had been identified in the literature would be born out across multiple schools, or indeed, if
individual schools would be undertaking multiple practices. Given that the two least alternative schools
still had 3 alternative practice domains, and 37% of schools were doing 6 or more out of 9 of the possible
domains of practice, it is fair to say that the findings suggest that Victorian alternative schools are
demonstrating core-practice consistent with the literature. In that sense, evidence from the field has
enabled the successful redefining of alternative practices in a way that moves beyond deficit models
previously used (Ladd, 2014, p. 9).
The following aspect, which was to identify progressive practices, has been somewhat achieved. The kinds
of specific practices that demonstrate the ‘progressive domains’ have proven to be diverse as
demonstrated in Table 2. How schools enact their various progressive philosophical and pedagogical
approaches differently, and the frequency of those approaches has been mapped extensively for the
chosen sample. Importantly, it is the measurability of the domains of practice and the mapping of their
frequency that distinguishes this research from others. Te Riele (The Victoria Institute, 2014), in her
identification of alternative practices in Flexible Learning Options (FLOs) across Victoria, provided detailed
descriptions of core ‘actions’ of FLOs, but did not map the frequency of these and tended to focus on
attitudes rather than practices through use of attitudinal surveys and documentary analysis. Moreover,
her descriptions of practices were broad and therefore difficult to measure. For example: ‘build genuine
and caring relationships’ and ‘create meaningful learning’ were used (ibid., p. 54), but terms such as
‘genuine’ and ‘meaningful’ are difficult to measure, although her descriptions do bear these ideas out
somewhat. Domains used in this study are more easily measured such as ‘relationship-based behaviour
intervention’ which is demonstrated through implementation of specific pedagogies such as Trauma-
Informed and Restorative Practices and Unconditional Positive Regard (see Appendix Item 2). Closer
investigation of school practices through interviews and observation may yet yield more domains which
could fall under the concept of ‘progressive’. However, these were not obvious during the documentary
analysis, instead most practices fit under the 9 domains this study identified. Of course, it is also possible
that there are more Victorian schools which do not identify as alternative and were not identified during
searches. Identification of these schools may add to the rigour of this framework.
Finally, the framework this study used for the evaluation of alternative practices shows promise. By
obtaining information about which schools practiced which domains, we can make inferences about the
domains themselves and their likely contribution to student attainment. If we sort the data and look at
the higher performing schools, we can see common practices including Domain 5: student-centric
learning, Domain 4: inclusive differentiation and Domain 1: outdoor learning. Therefore, the claims by
Wrigley et al. (2012, p.104), that streaming and ability grouping perpetrates symbolic violence and
worsens disadvantage, seem to be supported by the prevalence of inclusive differentiation (the opposite
of ability grouping) within high-achieving progressive schools. Similarly, the commonness (8 schools) of
outdoor learning environments in successful progressive schools supports McLaughlin’s (2011, p.15) claim
that the ‘institutional framing of schooling is changing’. These three domains would therefore warrant
further investigation if future studies were interested in identifying possible ‘best-practice’ in alternative
education. The lower performing schools were dominated by Domains 2 (small class sizes), 7
(relationship-based behaviour intervention) and 6 (flexible progression). Indeed, Hattie (2012) has
recently attempted to discredit the actual achievement outcomes of small class sizes but he did not
consider their impact upon trauma affected and disengaged youth, which was the motivating factor for
this domain in a number of schools (eg: Parkville College, Berry Street, The Pavilion School). Further
critique of these practices is absolutely warranted, but the need to consider contextual factors and not
assume that because a practice does not work in one school it will never work remains (Dyson and Todd,
2010). We can also see that Domain 9 (experiential learning) is something that all schools undertake.
From this we can conclude that experiential learning is a common practice in progressive schooling. The
data also enabled comparisons and judgements to be made between the sample and the greater
population of schools which, with a larger sample which included less progressive schools and some
further controls on variables, could potentially facilitate causal conclusions about the effects of
progressive practices on disadvantaged student populations. Possible controls could include observations
or interviews to verify website information, a broader sample that includes low ICSEA and low
progressiveness value schools, longitudinal attainment and ICSEA data to account for spikes or dips for a
particular year that may have skewed data. Reardon (2012) provides an example of how longitudinal data
may be used in the context of achievement gap studies.
Aim 2: Might Alternative Practices Affect Attainment of Disadvantaged Youth?
The data would seem to suggest that alternative practices improve attainment for disadvantaged
students although further controls would be needed to establish causation. Despite the average ICSEA
score for the sample being 33 points lower than the larger population, their average attainment is only
6% lower than these schools (76% versus 82%). Moreover, the distribution of schools either side of the
mean of 82% attainment is the same in the sample as in the larger population, demonstrating the high
performance of this cohort of progressive schools. This distribution also suggests that there are some
schools in the sample that have significantly lower attainment than the majority and are bringing down
the average. As Figure 1 highlights, there are three lower attainment schools that are outliers: The
Pavilion School, Berry Street and Diamond Valley Learning Centre. If we remove these three schools,
there is a strong positive correlation (correlation coefficient of 0.28) between Attainment and
Alternativeness for the sample of mostly disadvantaged schools.
We can consider these outliers further. All three of these schools cater to students who have not
succeeded in the mainstream system, students who have dropped out or been marginalised from
schooling. Roth and Lee (2006) spoke of the ‘defensive learning’ patterns adopted by students with
repeated negative schooling experiences and the challenge schools face in overcoming these. Many
students at The Pavilion School have been involved with the youth justice system and come from very
unstable and vulnerable living situations. While Parkville College has comparatively high disadvantage,
their attainment is quite high invariably due, at least in part, to the fact that their students physically live
at their school so are more likely to attend classes. The three outlier schools are catering to high levels of
transience, a factor that is outside their control and may be affecting completion rates. They also target
trauma affected youth; the long-term impacts on learning for which have been well established (Anda et
al., 2006; Briere, 1992; Cole et al., 2013). This perhaps explains why they all do Domain 6: flexible
progression and Domain 7: relationship-based behaviour intervention. This concentrated disadvantage
may explain why despite their high levels of progressiveness, the attainment of these outlying schools
remains low. To get a full picture of attainment in these schools would require further investigation of
these practices and even an additional measure of success to that of attainment that reflects these school
efforts to re-integrate students into education by creating positive experiences. It is also possible that
certain progressive practices such as Domains 2, 7 and 6, are not affecting, or indeed negatively affecting
attainment of disadvantaged students. Certainly, the misapplication of Restorative Practices (a
relationship-based intervention model), where practices are applied without deeper philosophical and
cultural changes, has been shown to reduce its impact significantly (Blood & Thorsborne, 2005;
McCluskey et al., 2008). Although overall trends of such progressive practices seem positive, the results of
this study suggest that it would be worth considering these practices in greater depth and as they are
applied across the system more broadly.
Aim 3: Any Trends and Patterns For Further Research?
Figures 1 and 2 enable us to identify some interesting patterns that future studies may wish to consider.
Figure 1 highlights that there is a random spread of schools who identify, somewhat identify and do not
identify as alternative. We can see that for each of the three categories of self-identification, there are
both low and high levels of progressiveness. This could lead to the inference that there is no trend
regarding a school’s self-identification with their alternativeness and their actual alternativeness (or
‘progressiveness’ to use the term this study has proposed). Therefore, we could suggest from the data
that just because a school says they are alternative does not mean they are, and inversely, just because a
school does not identify as alternative does not mean that it isn’t. This finding therefore suggests that
much of the stereotyping and stigmatization of alternative spaces (McNulty & Roseboro, 2009) is
unwarranted. Indeed, Montessori and Steiner schools like Collingwood College and Melbourne Rudolf
Steiner School were not the most alternative in terms of their practices scoring 4/9 and 5/9, where others
that were non-identifying such as Cranbourne scored 6/9. It was interesting to note that many of the
schools that were purposefully identified for the sample were ‘community colleges’. These schools may
want to develop a network in future to build consensus about what distinguishes ‘community colleges’
from mainstream schools. Moreover, as Table 1 highlights, more schools used the term ‘progressive’ than
‘alternative’, a trend that would seem to support the new terminology of ‘progressive education’ that this
study has proposed. It certainly has a more positive connotation than ‘alternative’, which even
Melbourne Rudolf Steiner, a well-known alternative school, did not use. Instead they described
themselves as ‘modern’ which is a synonym for progressive.
Figure 2 also highlights a possible trend or lack of trend between the variables of disadvantage and
attainment. We know that disadvantage is the largest indicator of achievement in Australian schools
(Martin, 2002; Black, 2006; Demie & Mclean, 2015) but the schools in this study seem to challenge this
trend. Figure 2 shows the relative spread of disadvantage by size of bubbles. If, as is the case in the wider
population, there was a strong correlation between disadvantage and attainment, we would see a
concentration of larger bubbles below the X axis. Although overall this is the case, it is not a clear trend,
with some highly disadvantaged schools such as Yuille Park (ICSEA 862), Oakwood (ICSEA 933) and
Parkville College (unknown but assumed very high disadvantage) achieving average and above average
attainment. Studies that wanted to investigate ‘best-practice’ in the context of alternative education for
disadvantaged youth may wish to consider these schools as case studies.
Finally, although we do not have the ICSEA data for three schools (marked in green in Figure 2), if we
assume, based on an understanding of the students they specialise in working with, that they have very
high levels of disadvantage, we can see a potential link between disadvantage and progressiveness. If this
assumption were true, then a concentration of highly disadvantaged schools, (except for Northern Bay
College) would sit towards the right of the X axis meaning they are highly progressive. From this it may be
possible that the more disadvantaged a school is, the more likely they are to practice progressive
education. Whether there are reasons for that trend such as the needs of their students, the makeup of
their teachers, or willingness of parents and communities to support schools to innovate and take risks,
would be a very interesting area for further research.
Two Case Studies
Yuille Park Community College
Despite having the highest levels of disadvantage amongst the sample and being 138 ICSEA points below
the national average (862), Yuille Park has achieved attainment levels equal to that of the average of the
wider population and above the average for the sample. This school had a progressiveness score of 5 and
some unique practices within Domains 8 and 5 that might explain its success. For Domain 8, Yuille Park
demonstrates the strongest links to the community of any school in the sample. In their own words, their
college ‘is a leading example of how a community can work together with government to provide facilities
and services for everyone’ (“Yuille Park Community College,” 2017). Facilities can be used outside of
school hours including the library, community garden, function rooms and commercial kitchen.
Furthermore, the school has strong partnerships with Wendouree Youth Centre and Learning Hub, Well-
being Organisation and the local Men’s Shed. In terms of Domain 5, there is a very strong emphasis on
collaborative and student-centred learning. This is enacted through mixed-year level ‘learning-
communities’, inquiry projects, opportunities for autonomy such as running a commercial café, garden
and participating in leadership camps, all within a broader philosophy of ‘do with’ students rather than
‘do to’ them (ibid.). Interestingly, Domain 5 is consistent with other higher performing alternative schools
while Domain 8 is less common, particularly amongst the more disadvantaged schools. This highlights the
likelihood that it is not the domain itself that is inherently effective or ineffective, but the way in which it
is enacted. As Dyson and Todd (2010) have argued, we need to focus on the potential of these initiatives,
not simply their success or failure in isolated contexts. Perhaps it is the fact that in this instance, both
Domain 8 and 5 are practices that are supported by broader pedagogical and social ideologies; that
students should have autonomy and that education is a community responsibility.
Cranbourne Secondary
Similar to Yuille Park, Cranbourne Secondary was one of the higher performing schools in the sample. It
had a progressiveness score of 6 and an attainment 1% higher than the general population (83%), despite
a disadvantage level 63 points below average (937). Interestingly, it did not identify as an alternative
school despite its high progressiveness score. It’s strongest domains of progressive practice were Domain
4, 7 and 9. Schmidt et al. (2015) said of Domain 4 (inclusive differentiation) that streaming of students has
often followed student background and perpetuated inequalities by offering unequal exposure times to
important content. Cranbourne’s ‘High Achiever Program’ uses testing and teacher recommendations to
identify ‘high achieving, highly able and talented students’ but importantly, differentiation occurs within
the classroom rather than streaming to ensure ‘a very high expectation from all students’ (“High Achiever
Program,” 2017). For Domain 7 (relationship-based behaviour intervention), Cranbourne uses Restorative
Practices as well as extensive well-being services and supports for students and families. Restorative
behavioural interventions are also common in the schools catering to youth that have experienced
trauma and are displaying severe behavioural issues (Parkville College, Berry Street and The Pavilion
School). It would be worth investigating further why it is that Cranbourne may be having more success in
this area than others. Finally, their implementation of Domain 9 (experiential learning) is more extensive
than most schools in the sample, with work experience, VCAL and VET, and a ‘SPARKL’ program where
disengaged students worked with an entrepreneur to redesign a classroom by obtaining community
sponsorship. These progressive student-centred and flexible options coupled with extremely high levels
of support and high expectations have clearly played a significant role in the success of this school.
Assumptions and Limitations There are some assumptions and limitations to this study that need to be acknowledged as they have
implications upon the generalisability of its findings. These assumptions can be divided into the themes of
methodological and conceptual.
Methodological
Documentary analysis methodology used to establish the domains of progressive practice does have
some potential shortfalls. The differing capacity of schools to develop their online presence and fully
present a picture of their actual practice may result in discrepancy (Merriam, 2009, p. 159). It is possible
that in some cases website data was out of date, however, given the immense pressure on schools to
maintain enrolments and avoid adverse media, it is highly unlikely that this is significant enough to have
distorted the data. Finally, it is possible that the researcher showed ‘bias selectivity’ (Bowen, 2009, p. 32)
in deciding on whether website information met the various definitions of progressive practice domains.
I aimed to reduce this potential by recording and comparing exact wordings (see Appendix Item 2) and
attempting to be consistent with the types of phrases or practices required across the entire sample. For
example, only schools that made specific reference to ‘student-centred’, ‘student-led’, ‘based on student
interest’ or ‘inquiry’ and ‘project’ learning were given scores for Domain 5 ‘student-centric’ learning.
Given the short time frame for this study, I was not able to go beyond website information as others have
done (Te Riele, 2014) to include documents such as newsletters and annual reports, which may have also
uncovered practices not indicated on websites.
Conceptual
Whenever one attempts to measure something, you inevitably reduce that thing to something lesser than
its whole. Although the literature review was used to justify the methods for measuring the three
variables of ‘attainment’, ‘disadvantage’ and ‘progressiveness’, the data gathering and analysis process
has resulted in the emergence of some conceptual flaws of these variables.
Regarding attainment; attainment does not consider the potential development of these young people in
other, possibly vital areas. I have discussed the three outlier schools and the kinds of young people they
are targeting. Although their attainment is low, the work that these schools are doing around Trauma
Informed Practice and social-emotional wellbeing ought to be accounted for when presenting a picture of
their overall effect on these students. The link between trauma and low attainment has been recently
established (Barker, Kerr, Dong, Wood, & DeBeck, 2017). Unfortunately, mainstream achievement
measures (of which attainment is but one) do not consider the socio-emotional growth of the child and
the work undertaken by schools to undo broader social problems. Furthermore, this study only considers
whole-school attainment. Given that some literature has suggested that inequity within Australian
schools is particularly high (Schmidt et al., 2015, p. 375), it would be worth considering how internal
measures could be obtained. Perhaps a more nuanced measure of school impact that addresses these
factors would enable a more balanced and complete picture of school success.
Regarding progressiveness; there are a few limitations of the sample. Given that there were only three
schools in the sample that did not identify as alternative, yet their levels of actual progressiveness varied
in a similar way to the other two categories (see Figure 1), it is fair to assume that there are many more
non-identifying schools that may be doing these or other progressive practices. Potentially, a greater
number than the self-identifying schools. Future studies would need to perhaps contact all schools within
the chosen population for the study (Victoria in this case) and invite them to participate based on
whether they felt they demonstrated some of the various domains. Similar methods have been used by
others (McNulty & Roseboro, 2009), and given an extended research period, this would be a beneficial
adaptation.
Regarding disadvantage; although ICSEA is a viable concept that is holistic, measurable and enables
comparisons, it has become clear that there are different cohorts of disadvantaged youth that these
schools claim to cater for. These include youth that don’t learn well in groups, youth in detention, youth
experiencing homelessness, youth who have left school, young parents and more. Again, future studies
may want to separate these cohorts out and consider what alternative practices are being used to
specifically meet their diverse needs. In addition, it became apparent that there are not enough above-
average ICSEA progressive schools in the sample to make inferences about whether it is their
progressiveness or their relative advantage that has impacted their attainment. To establish this, we
would need to consider a separate group of alternative schools that are all above average ICSEA.
Recommendations for Further StudiesBased on the discussion of the findings of this study and its various assumptions and limitations, I wish to
propose some recommendations both for future studies, as well as for teachers and stakeholders in the
progressive educational space. These recommendations have the intention of furthering the inquiry into
the effects of progressive schools by increasing collaboration and continuing to advocate for reflective
and constructive measures of success.
1) Conduct case-studies: Taking from the claim of Dyson and Todd (2010, p. 131), that evaluations
of alternative practice need to reflect the complexity and variability of these schools, the data
gathered by this study would be enriched with some participant-observer methodology within
the schools themselves. Indeed Dyson’s 2011 research used case-studies combined with
performance data and theory-of-change evaluation and provides a useful model going forward.
Case-studies can still include documentary analysis akin to what this study has done, but could
also involve techniques such as observation, interviews, or questionnaires (Creswell & Creswell,
2013, p. 97) . McNulty & Roseboro (2009) also provide a good example of how in-depth
interviews of students can provide a deeper understanding of practices and cultures within
progressive schools. These qualitative methods could also potentially yield further progressive
domains that could be added to the current set. Combined with documentary analysis which has
also produced some informative data, a more vivid picture of progressive practices would be
obtained. Having said this, the need to develop consistent evaluative models through consensus
across these schools remains, if we wish to make comparisons to more mainstream schools and
develop the discourse more broadly. Furthermore, although ICSEA has been shown to be a valid
measure of student background that has enabled meaningful comparisons across schools, there is
scope to investigate the impacts on students from different backgrounds within schools. Case-
studies and other qualitative methods could be used to gather this internal data from schools
where there may be a diversity of backgrounds. This information would enable further evaluation
of the progressive domains of practice.
2) Develop a more holistic measure of success: In addition, future studies ought to consider
addressing the limitations of using purely attainment data as a measure of success, considering
instead an index which included measures of wellbeing such as school satisfaction data or studies
could develop their own questionnaires. They may also wish to consider academic performance
such as student growth rates to obtain a more holistic but still equitable measure of achievement.
I caution however against using limited measures of growth that focus purely on literacy and
numeracy such as NAPLAN because these are unlikely to capture the achievement of
disadvantaged students in more practical subject areas such as those taught in VCAL.
Studies wishing to further this discourse would also do well to consider using longitudinal data for
the variables this study has used to consider how disadvantage, attainment and progressiveness
have changed over time. Obtaining this information for disadvantage and attainment would be
manageable, however for progressiveness, this would require the use of case-studies or historical
documentary analysis which could be very time consuming.
Schools and teachers can also play a pivotal role in driving public policy and discourse around
school success (Black, 2006). This study has proposed a framework for measuring success that
enables comparisons across the schooling system, but if ATAR scores and international
standardised tests continue to drive the agenda of school appraisal then implementing it will be
challenging. Schools themselves can undertake this work by setting their own markers and
success indicators that reflect their innovation, re-engagement and rehabilitation agendas.
Schools such as Templestowe College have begun to do this in collaboration with universities
(Jacks, 2016).
3) Consult schools to develop a ‘Progressive Schools Network’: further research into these schools
and their progressive practices will become much easier if we can achieve consensus on the
terminology they use to identify. This study has presented the case for ‘progressive education’ as
a workable and positive term which is easily understood by mainstream education and already
being used by many alternative providers. However, for schools that identify as ‘specialist’
because they cater to a particular needs base (eg: youth in detention, youth at-risk), this would
require a shift in ideology. An Independent Schools Network was recently established in Victoria
(see www.is.vic.edu.au) and alternative networks already exist overseas in places like the United
States (Ladd, 2014). Lessons may be taken from these networks and applied to progressive public
schools or privately funded schools targeting disadvantage such as those used in the sample.
Raising the consciousness of schools to the breadth of progressive models already in practice may
also help to unearth other progressive schools across the state and indeed the country. Another
benefit of a network is that the progressive domains could be regularly updated to reflect
practices that have been discredited or are no longer used in progressive education as well as to
include newer innovative practices. Maintaining a clear definition of ‘progressive’ that includes
the concept of undoing inequity such as the one proposed by this study, will be important for this
initiative going forward. The benefits of this may also spread to a mainstream system that has
reduced negative perceptions of these schools and is itself more willing to take risks and adopt
innovative and experimental practices (Henrich, 2005).
Conclusion This study has attempted to bring the ‘alternative’ out of the shadows and into the ‘mainstream’ by
focusing on its potential impacts upon disadvantage and educational inequity. The mixed-method
approach used to obtain data for 19 alternative schools in Victoria enabled the study to address its
objectives. First, a new framework for defining, identifying and evaluating alternative practices in
secondary schools was proposed and trailed. Although there is room for improving the evaluative
capacity of this framework, its ability to define and identify progressive educational practices is a strong
model for future research. Expanding the sample, implementing controls of variables and conducting in-
depth case studies have been suggested as mechanisms for refining the framework further. Second,
effects of progressive practices on attainment of disadvantaged youth suggest an overall positive trend
that certainly warrants further investigation. In particular, the fact that over 50% of these schools are
equalling or indeed out-performing mainstream schools speaks to the capacity of dynamic and
progressive practices to make measurable difference to Australia’s inequity issue. Finally, several trends
relating to how schools identify, how particular practices have been implemented differently and the
effects of this, and relationships between the variables of attainment, disadvantage and progressiveness,
emerged from the data and can be used to drive further research.
This study has proposed the term ‘progressive schools’ as a way of demystifying alternative educational
practices. This new definition and its associated evaluative tool (the ‘domains of progressive practice’)
could inspire a less divisive dialogue across the broader educational system. One where reflective risk-
taking and exploration are encouraged and all practices, along a spectrum of mainstream to progressive
or industrial to post-industrial, are subject to scrutiny and reform. This more inclusive and humanistic
framework will also enable us to progress to the next challenge: if student-background is not the principal
indicator of success then what should be?
ReferencesACARA - Curriculum. (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2017, from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum
Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Bremner, J. D., Walker, J. D., Whitfield, C., Perry, B. D., … Giles, W. H. (2006). The
enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood. European Archives of
Psychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4
Apple, M. W. (2013). Education and power. routledge. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?
hl=fr&lr=&id=vY3hAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=apple+education+and+power&ots=iFwkRpo_
-O&sig=Vpq47iETw0Lurm7uVTSkuZT9CZk
Australian Schools Directory. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2017, from
http://www.australianschoolsdirectory.com.au/search-alternative.php
Bargen, J., Sanders, J., Blakemore, C., Sutherland, L., & Crellin, S. (2010). Disadvantaged young people.
Hot Topics: Legal Issues in Plain Language, (73), 25.
Barker, B., Kerr, T., Dong, H., Wood, E., & DeBeck, K. (2017). High school incompletion and childhood
maltreatment among street-involved young people in Vancouver, Canada. Health & Social Care in
the Community, 25(2), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12314
Berry Street School. (2016, May 13). Retrieved May 17, 2017, from
https://www.berrystreet.org.au/school
Black, R. (2006). Overcoming Disadvantage through the Innovative Classroom. Online Submission.
Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2005). The challenge of culture change: Embedding restorative practice in
schools. In 6th International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative
Practices,‘Building a Global Alliance for Restorative Practices and Family Empowerment (pp. 3–5).
Retrieved from
http://www.ocde.us/HealthyMinds/Documents/RP%20Resources/ChallengeofCultureChange.pdf
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal
(RMIT Training Pty Ltd Trading as RMIT Publishing), 9(2), 27–40.
https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Breaking the ruler: Melbourne school lets students choose when to learn, what to study. (2015, March
27). [Text]. Retrieved June 11, 2017, from
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/victorian-high-school-teaching-a-
new-way/6353574
Briere, J. (1992). Child abuse trauma : theory and treatment of the lasting effects. Newbury Park, Calif. :
Sage Publications, c1992.
COAG Meeting Communiqué, 30 April 2009 | Council of Australian Governments. (n.d.). Retrieved May
31, 2017, from https://www.coag.gov.au/meeting-outcomes/coag-meeting-communiqu%C3%A9-
30-april-2009
Cole, S. F., Cole, S. F., Eisner, A., Gregory, M., & Ristuccia, J. (2013). Creating and advocating for trauma -
sensitive schools / Susan F. Cole ... [et al.]. Boston, MA : Massachusetts Advocates for Children
and Harvard law School, 2013.
Community Partnerships | Yuille Park Community College. (n.d.). Retrieved May 31, 2017, from
http://www.yuilleparkcc.vic.edu.au/about-us/community-partnerships
Cook, H., & Jacks, T. (2017, February 26). “They thought I”d become a tradie’: Why schools lock students
out of VCE. The Age. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/they-thought-id-
become-a-tradie-why-schools-lock-students-out-of-the-vce-20170220-gugpmm.html
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design : choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks : SAGE Publications, [2013].
Demie, F., & Mclean, C. (2015). Tackling Disadvantage: What Works in Narrowing the Achievement Gap in
Schools. Review of Education, 3(2), 138–174.
Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Courier Corporation. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?
hl=fr&lr=&id=19ajcXf4MCYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=democracy+and+education+dewey&ots=lHAA
4tShB7&sig=0j179vXx0mJzp0BHRes10O_uskE
Dewey, J. (2013). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. University of Chicago Press.
Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?
hl=fr&lr=&id=1f0tAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=dewey+school+and+the+life+of+the+child&ot
s=5dA6xUHUS7&sig=Alid8ETSMunlaBS6Mk__Hit1T9I
Dyson, A. (2011). Full Service and Extended Schools, Disadvantage, and Social Justice. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 41(2), 177–193.
Dyson, A., & Todd, L. (2010). Dealing with Complexity: Theory of Change Evaluation and the Full Service
Extended Schools Initiative. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 33(2), 119–
134.
Freire, P. (2009). Chapter 2: from Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global
Perspectives, 2(2), 163–174.
Frempong, G., Ma, X., & Mensah, J. (2012). Access to Postsecondary Education: Can Schools Compensate
for Socioeconomic Disadvantage? Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher
Education and Educational Planning, 63(1), 19–32.
Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Uneven Playing Field? Assessing the Teacher Quality Gap
between Advantaged and Disadvantaged Students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293–307.
Gonski, D. (2011). Review of funding for schooling: Final report. Retrieved from
https://www.mysciencework.com/publication/show/88edc463c431a8f91852c3f4be913416
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers : maximizing impact on learning. London ; New York :
Routledge, 2012.
Henrich, R. S. (2005). Expansion of an Alternative School Typology. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 11(1), 25–37.
High Achiever Program. (n.d.). Retrieved May 31, 2017, from http://www.cranbournesc.vic.edu.au/high-
achiever-program
Hodgson, D. R. (2006). Boys in and out of school: narratives of early school leaving (mresearch). Murdoch
University. Retrieved from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/100/
Home | My School. (n.d.). Retrieved March 30, 2017, from https://www.myschool.edu.au/
Hoxby, C. M. (2016). The Immensity of the Coleman Data Project. Education Next, 16(2), 64–69.
Independent Schools Victoria. (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2017, from https://www.is.vic.edu.au/
Jacobs, L. A. (2016). Dealing fairly with winners and losers in school: Reframing how to think about
equality of educational opportunity 50 years after the Coleman Report. Theory & Research in
Education, 14(3), 313.
Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu / Richard Jenkins. London ; New York : Routledge, 1992.
Ladd, R. J. (2014). A Study of Alternative Education Programs in the State of Missouri. LINDENWOOD
UNIVERSITY. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/36/82/3682286.html
Mann, M. J., Kristjansson, A. L., Sigfusdottir, I. D., & Smith, M. L. (2014). The Impact of Negative Life
Events on Young Adolescents: Comparing the Relative Vulnerability of Middle Level, High School,
and College-Age Students. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 38(2).
McClelland College | We do things differently. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2017, from
http://www.mcclellandcollege.vic.edu.au/learn-at-mcclelland/we-do-things-differently-find-out-
how
McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Stead, J., & Weedon, E. (2008). Can restorative practices in
schools make a difference? Educational Review, 60(4), 405–417.
McKenzie, N., & Baker, R. (2017, April 4). Top teacher speaks out about youth prison system in crisis. The
Age. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/top-teacher-speaks-out-about-youth-
prison-system-in-crisis-20170404-gvd1m1.html
McLaughlin, S. (2011). Schooling the Rustbelt Kids: Making the Difference in Changing Times - By Pat
Thomson. Support for Learning, (3), 139.
McNulty, C. P., & Roseboro, D. L. (2009). “I’m not really that bad”: Alternative School Students, Stigma,
and Identity Politics. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(4), 412–427.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903266520
Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative Research. [electronic resource] : A Guide to Design and Implementation.
Hoboken : Wiley, 2014.
Mogalakwe, M. (2009). The Documentary Research Method – Using Documentary Sources in Social
Research. Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review, 25(1). Retrieved from
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/eassrr/article/view/22759
Morsy, L., Rothstein, R., & Economic Policy Institute. (2015). Five Social Disadvantages That Depress
Student Performance: Why Schools Alone Can’t Close Achievement Gaps. Report. Economic Policy
Institute.
O’Gorman, E., Salmon, N., & Murphy, C.-A. (2016). Schools as sanctuaries: A systematic review of
contextual factors which contribute to student retention in alternative education. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(5), 536–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1095251
Opie, C., & Sikes, P. J. (2004). Doing educational research : a guide to first-time researchers. London :
SAGE, 2004.
Our Purpose | Big Picture Education Australia. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2017, from
https://www.bigpicture.org.au/about-us/our-purpose
Pierce, H. F., Heather Vogell, Olga. (2017, February 21). Methodology: How We Analyzed Alternative
Schools Data. Retrieved June 11, 2017, from https://www.propublica.org/article/alternative-
schools-methodology
Post Compulsory Completion and Achievement Information. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2017, from
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Pages/vce/statistics/schoolstats/index.aspx
Psacharopoulos, G. (1978). Economic Implications of Raising the School Leaving Age. Comparative
Education Review, 22(1), 71–79.
Publishing, O. (2012). Equity and Quality in Education. [electronic resource] : Supporting Disadvantaged
Students and Schools. Paris : OECD Publishing, 2012.
Race to the Finnish: Why Finland is leading the way in education — EducationHQ Australia. (n.d.).
Retrieved April 18, 2017, from http://au.educationhq.com/news/34646/race-to-the-finnish-why-
finland-is-leading-the-way-in-education/
Ravitch, D. (2015). Charter Schools Are a Bad Idea.
Reardon, S. F. (2012). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New
evidence and possible explanations. AASL Hotlinks, 10(10), 1–1.
Robinson, L., & Lamb, S. (2012). How young people are faring (HYPAF) 2012: the national report on the
learning and earning of young Australians.
Roth, W.-M. (2015). Schooling Is the Problem: A Plaidoyer for Its Deinstitutionalization. Canadian Journal
of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(3), 315–331.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2006). Contradictions in theorizing and implementing communities in education.
Educational Research Review, 1, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.01.002
Schmidt, W. H., Burroughs, N. A., Zoido, P., & Houang, R. T. (2015). The Role of Schooling in Perpetuating
Educational Inequality: An International Perspective. Educational Researcher, 44(7), 371–386.
School dumps cut-throat VCE ranking. (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2017, from
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/school-dumps-cutthroat-vce-ranking-20160226-gn4gk0.html
Schools and Centres | Montessori Australia Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2017, from
https://montessori.org.au/schools-and-centres
Smith, A. (2017, March 15). PISA results show gap between rich and poor students unchanged in 15 years.
The Age. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/pisa-results-show-gap-
between-rich-and-poor-students-unchanged-in-15-years-20170314-guxj4k.html
Smyth, J. (2012). The “Socially Just School” and Critical Pedagogies in Communities “Put at a
Disadvantage.” Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 9–18.
Steiner Education Australia. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2017, from https://www.steinereducation.edu.au/
Thomson, P. (2014). What’s the alternative? Effective support for young people disengaging from the
mainstream. Literature Review.
Victoria Institute: “putting the jigsaw together: flexible learning programs in Australia Final Report” -
Recherche Google. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2017, from https://www.google.com.au/webhp?
sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU689AU689&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-
8#q=Victoria+Institute:+’putting+the+jigsaw+together:
+flexible+learning+programs+in+Australia+Final+Report’&*
Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level : why greater equality makes societies stronger. New
York : Bloomsbury Press, 2010.
Wrigley, T., Lingard, B., & Thomson, P. (2012). Pedagogies of Transformation: Keeping Hope Alive in
Troubled Times. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 95–108.
Appendix
Item 1: School level alternative domains
SchoolDomain
1
Domai
n 2
Domain
3
Domain
4
Domain
5
Domain
6
Domai
n 7
Domain
8
Domai
n 9Total
Parkville College 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
Sydney Road Community
School0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4
Berry Street 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6
McClelland College 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4
Yea High School 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
Croydon Community
School0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4
Kensington Community
High School0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
Cranbourne Secondary
(Young Parents Education)0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6
Diamond Valley Learning
Centre0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Rutherglen High School
(Alpine School)1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
The Pavilion School
(Charles la Trobe Preston)*0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
Sherbrooke Community 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 6
School
Oakwood School 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
Collingwood College 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Templestowe College 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 6
Melbourne Rudolf Steiner
School1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 5
Northern Bay College 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3
Mount Alexander College 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4
Yuille Park Community
College1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 5
Total 8 11 11 10 12 6 8 8 19
Item 2: School Website Raw Data
Factor 1: outdoor classrooms,
environments, schools or
extensive outdoor education
Factor 2: small class sizes
Factor 3: extended/flexible
timetable or access
Factor 4: inclusive
differentiation (not streaming)
Factor 5: student-centric
learning (projects, inquiry,
interest-based curric vs. direct
instruction)
Factor 6: flexible progression
(not age-based)
Factor 7: Relationship-based
behaviour intervention
Factor 8: Comm
unity service
by students or school linked
to comm
unity services
Factor 9: Experiential learning
and applied curriculum for
‘life’
Identify as Alternative? (Yes,
Somew
hat, No)
School
limited access to outdoor
environments due to it being Prison
small class sizes'
weekends and holidays, 'flexible
learning centre'
individual learning plans (all
students), students are streamed
based on sentencing but not ability
curriculum is based on our student's
interest and need'
students gradually build their
independent work stam
ina' 'VCAL's
structure allows students to
undertake a study program that suits
trauma inform
ed practice,
motivational interview
ing,
unconditional positive regard
They do interschool sport but no
explicit service program
VCAL, art exhibitions
specialist', 'unique characteristics',
Parkville C
ollege
have some outdoor ed and cam
ping
but not main feature
small school, 100 students 13
teaching staff 8 learning support
assistants'
accessible education for all, no fees,
no uniforms, no book lists...year 11
and 12 students are able to negotiate
flexible development of
individualised programs'
No m
ention
No m
ention
we are renow
ned for our close, respectful
and supportive relationships between staff
and students', wellbeing groups and
pastoral care
No m
ention
VCAL, VET
progressive', 'no competitive
assessment', 'for students w
ho have
not experienced success in other
areas'
Sydney R
oad Com
munity S
chool
some outdoor spaces but not a
focus
high ratio of staff for number of
students'
no mention
individualised learning key
strategy'-ILPs
the curriculum program
for each
student is then designed...to
develop skills in their area of
interest'
Individual Education and
Learning Plans are updated
every term, VCAL offered 'to
students who show
readiness'
relationship-based practice'
'unconditional positive regard'
Berry Street School linked to
Berry Street Childhood Institute,
VCAL and altered Aus Curric, ILPs
include life goals
specialist' for 'students who have
found it difficult to learn in a
group setting'
Berry S
treet
outdoor mathem
atics classroom', outdoor
education elective 9/10
no mention
no mention
teachers can manipulate and target learning
groups...highly skilled at differentiation', 'no
full-advanced classes' 'students are only
advanced in subjects they are ready for'
student-focused instead of content
focused'...Academy’s offer projects of inquiry
and are student driven
advanced students undertake some higher
subjects but majority based on age
zero-tolerance approach to anti-social behaviours',
'those who are disruptive w
ill be removed from
the
main learning environm
ent and placed into
programm
es more suited to their needs'
some program
s include but not main feature
VCAL 'life-long learners', career planning and
advising from year 8, 'Academ
y Program' life
skills
we do things a litt
le differently', 'one size fits
all doesn't work anym
ore'
McC
lelland College
have some outdoor program
s but not extensive
no mention
Not flexible tim
etable but flexible access through
'Access Yea Comm
unity Education Program'
which has flexible spaces/tim
etable and
Mention of ILPs but no m
ention of differentiation
or applicability to classroom
Student-led conferences', Year 9 undertake 'deep
learning projects', 'student choice', 'empow
er
students to take charge of their learning'
No m
ention
mention of relationships but not an intervention
model
some program
s include but not main feature
Big Picture School (see website), VCAL/VET
students previously not connected with
education', 'progressive attitude to...education
provision'
Yea H
igh School
no mention
maxim
um class size of 15'
no mention
each student has comprehensive
ILP...crafted by students' options
program abandoned for inclusive m
odel
internship program, student-led
exhibitions and portfolios
no mention
some m
inor mention of
comm
unity service but not
significant
Big Picture, VCAL, internships 2
days a week
provides an alternate education for
students who for various reasons
have had trouble in their previous
schools'
Croydon C
omm
unity School
no mention
enrolments 85-100, teaching
staff 12'
enrolments accepted throughout
the year'
no mention
no mention
no mention
services and behaviour support
but no mention of relationship
school makes use of the local com
munity
facilities-stadium, libraries, outdoor
environments and local businesses'
'comm
unity-based programs'
VCAL, TAFE, work related and
further study related courses in
yr. 11/12
alternative setting to m
ainstream
schools...for students who are
vulnerable'
Kensington C
omm
unity High
School
no mention
average-large class sizes
not flexible timetable but Young Parents
Education provided through SELLEN
program
high achiever program 'encourage and
challenge these students to excel across all
subject areas by means of curriculum
differentiation'
students became co-designers of the
curriculum'
no mention
restorative practices'
comm
unity theatre is available to
comm
unity also
VCAL, structured work placem
ents, VET
no mention
Cranbourne S
econdary (Young
Parents E
ducation)
mention of w
ilderness program but
as option not core practice
keeping our classes small and
friendly'
access to adults, people with
disabilities, students, people from
overseas, workers. 'W
e make
no specific mention
no specific mention
students complete select and
complete courses at their pace
our teachers are experienced in
trauma inform
ed education', support
with m
entor teacher and group
sessions
shower bus to school, soup bus and
homelessness support organisations
VCAL, 'there is a lot of opportunity
for hands on learning including
excursions'
funded to deliver Reconnect services to engage
young people...who have left school' 'Students
who have not been adequately supported in
traditional environments'
Diam
ond Valley Learning C
entre
Regular school camps, access
Alpine School, fully functioning
farm
prides itself on small class sizes'
no mention
maths students are grouped per
ability'
no mention
no mention
no mention
Comm
unity restaurant, connected to
comm
unity centre (on site), regular
participation in comm
unity events
(markets etc.)
VCAL/VET, restaurant, farm,
school-based apprenticeships
no mention
Rutherglen H
igh School
(Alpine S
chool)
No m
ention
groups of 15 students have 1 teacher, 1 youth
worker, 1 teacher assistant'
The Pavilion School staff and students work together to create a tim
etable that is suitable to each student’s particular needs'.
each student has 'Student Learning Plan' which assists
them to be suitably m
atched to classes but not streamed
based on ability. All about pathways and personal, social,
academic developm
ent
student-centred approach' Circle time: student
negotiate and discuss goals at start of lesson.
students involved in designing elective subjects
Student Learning Plans 'students and staff
negotiate the appropriate pace'
mediation and restorative practices'
'unconditional positive regard' 'circle time'
no mention
VCAL, pathways counselling and referrals
young people 12-20 disengaged or excluded from
mainstream
education'
The Pavilion S
chool (Charles La Trobe
Preston)
Revegetation projects, sheep
and chooks part of program for
students, kitchen garden,
enjoys smaller class sizes' 'sm
all
school' 'capped student
population of 160'
No m
ention
differential learning'
students set personal goals with
assistance of teachers' 'student
present...their annual progress to a
panel' 'student voices are heard'
no mention
provision of services and
mention of sm
all class
environment but not explicit
monthly m
arket stall selling
school produce, comm
unity
clean up days
VCAL/VET, school cafe
a viable alternate educational
setting'
Sherbrooke C
omm
unity
School
No m
ention
small classes of up to ten students per
teacher'
some students att
end classes held in
our flexible learning network w
hich
operates in comm
unity venues'
developmentally responsive
personalised learning and pathway
plan'
students directly involved in
curriculum design, reporting and
assessment'
no mention
no mention
no mention
VCAL, 'develop life-long skills'
mainstream
learning environment is
seen as inappropriate to meet the
young person's needs'
Oakw
ood School
outdoor ed program part of Steiner
stream, pioneer school for Stephanie
Alexander kitchen garden program,
small groups of children are taught by
teams of teachers'
no mention
no mention
student-centred teaching' 'gears the
curriculum to suit the child' 'inquiry' 'self-
directed' learning
no mention
services but no mention of relationship
interventions’
no mention
VET, Steiner model very m
uch about
hands on learning
progressive'
Collingw
ood College
permaculture garden (part of M
ontessori
program), access to Alpine School, outdoor ed
program
class of 25 students in year 7
7:15 to 5:15pm'
All students have ILPs, subject selection based on
interest not ability, multi-age classes, G+T
students integrated into main program
s
students have far greater skills and abilities than
they are generally given credit for...and they have
the ability to manage their ow
n education',
personalised projects
we dropped all reference to year levels, and now
all students select 100% of their course load', year
8 and 9 students taking VCE subjects
mentor teachers act as advocates but no m
ention
of behaviour interventions
no mention
VCAL/VET, graduates (year 12s) take part in 'focused
programs...to assist them
in preparing for life after
school'. Students select their learning plan from 150
electives
flexible learning environment'
Templestow
e College
school farm, outdoor
ed focus
no mention
no mention
no mention
students present their
work to parents and
teachers,
no mention
strong dynamic
relationships'
Year 10 comm
unity
service
acquisition of real-life
skills', 'experiential
learning'
modern schooling',
Steiner model of
education
Melbourne R
udolf
Steiner S
chool
no mention
no mention
by extending our school day until 4.45 we
now provide a w
ider range of subject
choices and learning experiences', support
no mention
no mention
no mention
explicitly teaching positive behaviours',
'traditional ways of dealing w
ith problem
behaviour through punishment are not
effective in changing behaviour'
no mention
students are encouraged to participate in problems that
relate to life', work experience, VCAL/VET,
apprenticeships, hands on learning program external
provider (construction, landscaping etc.)
no mention
Northern B
ay College
extensive camp program
for all
students'
no mention
no mention
students self-select subjects and
progress, ILPs for every student
no mention
traditional school students are
grouped according to age, at MAC
we em
power our students...w
ith
vertical classes and subject choice'
we have zero tolerance of
bullying...' services but no mention
of relationships
no mention
VET/VCAL, 'lifelong learners'
one size does not fit
all'...'traditional schools...at mount
alexander...'
Mount A
lexander College
Outdoor ed program
, cottage by the sea
program
no mention
Yuille campus (off site) provides flexible
learning options for young people to re-engage
and remain actively involved in their learning'
no mention
A focus on ‘doing-with’ not ‘doing-to’. Changed the
traditional class structure to create ‘student-learning
comm
unities’. Students are involved in ‘what w
hen and
how they learn’
no mention
no mention
the school has a range of facilities that can be used by
the comm
unity...comm
ercial kitchen, function rooms,
comm
unity garden...' partnered with local youth centre
and men's shed
Students run comm
ercial cafe, multiple
mentions of 'lifelong learning', school
mott
o 'living to learn, learning to live'
flexible learning options'
Yuille P
ark Com
munity C
ollege