Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects of self-interest and neoliberal orientations

Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects of self-interest and neoliberal... The Australian education system features considerable socioeconomic inequality and is a frequent source of controversy in Australian public life. Yet meaningful reform to this system has proven elusive. In this article, we examine the public’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality based on parental financial capacity, using an online survey of adults (N = 1,999) from New South Wales, Australia. We asked about the fairness of inequality in school resources and education quality, and used a scenario in which students from high-income and low-income families had achievement gaps due to differences in educational experiences. Respondents had diverse perceptions about the fairness of educational inequality, but most perceived the scenario as unfair or very unfair. The partial proportional odds models showed that self-interest and neoliberal orientations predicted people’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality. The findings of this study have implications for achiev - ing meaningful reform of the Australian education system that is in line with public opinion. Keywords Fairness perceptions · Educational equity · Public opinion · Neoliberalism · Socioeconomic status Introduction ‘Fairness’ in contemporary education systems is frequently the focus of popular and political consternation. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment (OECD), for example, collects data on equity in education systems, particularly * Jung-Sook Lee js.lee@unsw.edu.au Meghan Stacey m.stacey@unsw.edu.au School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey the degree to which educational outcomes can be linked to categories of advantage or disadvantage, such as socioeconomic status (OECD, 2018). In Australia, equity has also been a purported policy focus, with national declarations on schooling over the past 25 years citing equity in education as a core goal (Stacey & Mockler, 2023). And yet, the OECD has designated the Australian system of public and private schools as one of the most highly segregated in the world (OECD, 2019). The Aus- tralian school system features persistent gaps in achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged students and is the subject of frequent public debate (although seemingly little policy action) regarding the public subsidisation of wealthy, fee- charging private schools (Cobbold, 2019). Australia, therefore, makes for an inter- esting case internationally when considering fairness perceptions in education, by examining whether structural inequality is perceived by the public as inequitable. This case can thereby provide insight into how public opinion may function to sup- port such a controversial, yet seemingly intractable, public policy settlement as that currently found in Australia. As such, in this article, we examine people’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality based on parental financial capacity and the factors that influence their fairness perceptions, from the market-oriented context of the Australian education system. The Australian school system The Australian school system includes a large private sector in which schools can charge fees without limit. Approximately 35% of students attend independent or Catholic private schools (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2021), with the sec- tor having expanded considerably since the 1980s (Stacey, 2020). The Australian school sectors, while highly internally diverse, also feature a clear pattern of segre- gation. According to Thomson (2021), 41% of government schools can be catego- rised as ‘disadvantaged schools’ compared to just 3% of Catholic schools and less than 1% of independent schools, where disadvantaged schools are defined as ‘those whose average intake of students falls in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status’ (p. 42). Despite this pattern of segregation, the Australian government provides some financial support to all schools, including those that charge fees. School fund- ing in Australia is a frequent topic of, at times, ‘poisonous’ debate in Australian public life (Forsey et  al., 2017). A good example of this are the ‘Gonski’ reforms to school funding, which came with a substantial price tag given the committee’s remit to ensure that no school would ‘lose a dollar’ (Gonski et  al., 2011, p. xvii). Australia has purportedly moved to a ‘needs-based’ funding system based on the Gonski model; however, reports abound that while private schools are often funded above their stated level of need, many public schools are yet to achieve their base level of funding and are unlikely to do so under recent projections (Cobbold, 2019). Indeed, there remain considerable disparities in material resources between schools. As Thomson (2021) summarises: While many government schools struggle with outdated and worn out facili- ties, lack of physical resources such as photocopy paper, broken down or 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… inadequate toilet facilities and a lack of teaching staff, some elite independent schools are spending astonishing amounts of money on capital works, includ- ing theatres with orchestra pits, indoor Olympic size swimming pools, well- ness centres, and equestrian centres. (p. 30) In addition to this, human resources and staffing can also vary considerably across schools according to their capacity to hire additional staff support (Stacey, 2020). The Australian system of market-based education has had particular implications for parents who may feel pressure to be a ‘good parent’ by strategically choosing a school for their children. Choice of school can be made in consideration of factors including family tradition, location, religious or secular values, and the desire to be near ‘people like us’ (Campbell et al., 2009). Choosing a ‘good’ school rather than simply sending one’s child to the local public school is, it would seem, increasingly considered a marker of good parenting, especially mothering (Proctor & Aitchison, 2015). These choices reflect a commercialisation of parenting (Ball, 2004), in which parents craft their children by purchasing educational opportunities. Even when par- ents are concerned about social justice issues, this appears to have limits in influenc- ing their interaction with the system. For instance, in Rowe and Lubienski (2017), parents who avowed an ideological preference for public education still sought to have their children attend schools with others ‘like them’. Indeed, while school funding amounts are often debated, the market-based, choice-driven structure of the system is rarely questioned (Stacey, 2022). This reflects how school choice has become a kind of ‘newly invented fundamental right’ (Campbell & Proctor, 2014, p. 225) for Australian parents. Indeed, a ‘discourse of choice’ is arguably a core part of neoliberal social settlements more broadly, with choice understood primarily as an inherent good for the individual rather than as a potential mechanism of social inequality (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014). In the mar- ketised education system, good parents are good consumers of education, with the good of one’s children appearing to take precedence over the concerns of the collective. Neoliberalism and educational inequality The normalisation of choice in Australia is despite evidence of the adverse impli- cations of such a system for the equitable achievements of students. For example, Sciffer et  al. (2022) investigated the effects of the socioeconomic composition of students in a school on individual students’ outcomes as a way of understanding the effects of school segregation on school effectiveness. It was assumed that segregat- ing low SES students into low SES schools exacerbates pre-existing social inequali- ties as it adds school-level disadvantage above individual-level disadvantage. Sciffer et  al. (2022) found that Australia alongside the United Kingdom, had the highest socioeconomic compositional effects among English-speaking countries, a finding they attributed to Australia’s support for private schooling. Similarly, Parker et  al. (2019) argue that a rapid increase in between-school stratification in achievement over the last 10‒20 years in Australia is most likely driven by an increase in school choice and the change of its nature and importance—school choice has become a 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey central parenting concern and a mechanism of class divides (Parker et  al., 2019). While Australia is particularly extreme in segregating its students across schools and sectors, achievement gaps associated with students’ socioeconomic backgrounds have been a persistent problem for many countries (Schleicher, 2019), and the ‘seg- regation of students along social and economic lines contributes to the persistence of inequalities due to family background’ (UNICEF Office of Research, 2018, p. 38). As such, data from Australia may prove internationally instructive when considering the public opinion that may underlie inequitable education systems and structures. Behind this international pattern of achievement gaps is, arguably, a neoliberal approach to the management of education. Educational reforms driven by neolib- eralism have exacerbated educational inequity in many countries including, but not limited to, Australia (Sahlberg, 2016). The common core of neoliberalism is the primacy of market-based competition (Mudge, 2008) and the norm of individual responsibility or self-reliance (Amable, 2010). Accordingly, many public sectors, including education, have undergone reforms characterised by deregulation, mar- ketisation, and privatisation (Sahlberg, 2016). Private providers have been brought in to perform many tasks in the education system, and public education has been made to mimic the private sector (Ball, 2004). Since the late 1980s, the Australian school system has embraced not only the school choice model described above but also the complementary neoliberal policy technologies of test-based accountability, an emphasis on individualised teacher quality, and the use of private sector manage- ment practices (Stacey & Mockler, 2023). As neoliberalism operates as a pervasive social, cultural, and economic logic internationally, in this article, we examine the public’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality based on parental financial capacity, from the Australian context in which a particularly extreme educational market logic operates alongside competing notions of egalitarianism and a ‘fair go’. Fairness perceptions Fairness is understood in many different ways. The notion of fairness is often used in a broad sense to refer to things that seem right, legitimate, or justified (Hooker, 2005; Olsen, 2011). In this broad sense, the notions of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ are often used interchangeably. In a narrower sense, fairness is commonly considered as applying the same rules impartially and equally to each agent (i.e., formal fairness) (Hooker, 2005). But it is possible to apply bad or partial rules to all claimants impar- tially and equally (Hooker, 2005). Accordingly, ‘substantive’ fairness moves beyond mere impartial applications of rules and considers the appropriateness of rules to be applied. In a distributive context, fairness requires an appropriate satisfaction of rel- evant claims in accordance with relevant criteria (e.g., desert, agreement, or needs) and relevant side constraints (e.g., moral obligations) (Hooker, 2005). In education, the concept of fairness is mainly discussed in relation to equity. Equity implies equality (i.e., equal treatment of equals) and the appropriate accom- modation of differences. In the education context, equality is often used in conjunc- tion with educational opportunities, not educational outcomes. Some inequalities are considered fair (Olsen, 2011), e.g., differing scores given to excellent performance 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… and poor performance in a mathematics exam. When inequality is considered unfair, it is inequity (Olsen, 2011). An unequal distribution of educational opportunities based on students’ social and family backgrounds is commonly considered unfair and thus, inequitable. Nevertheless, people may have different views about the crite- ria to be used and the side constraints to be considered in determining the fairness of distribution. Indeed, fairness or justice can mean different things to different people (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2018), leading to divergent views of fairness even when presented with the same situation. It is important to understand divergent views of what is ‘fair’, given that the public’s fairness perceptions of inequality can determine their support for policies designed to reduce inequality. For instance, Alesina and Angeletos (2005) demon- strated that society’s beliefs about the fairness of income inequality influenced its choice of redistributive policy. Studies have also found that if people believed that inequality was meritocratically deserving, they were less concerned about inequal- ity (Mijs, 2019) and less likely to support policies designed to reduce inequality (García-Sánchez et  al., 2020). Although public support may not be necessary or sufficient for policy implementation, public opinion can constrain or enable policy decisions as elected policymakers have incentives to stay close to the majority opin- ion (Valant & Newark, 2016). Thus, it is essential to understand the public’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality to develop equity-oriented educational policies that are supported by the public. The present study In this study, we investigated people’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality based on parental financial capacity. The public’s views about educational inequal- ity and initiatives to reduce it have received little attention from researchers (Valant & Newark, 2016). Such an omission is particularly notable in Australia, an ostensi- bly ‘egalitarian’ country where considerable gaps in educational attainment and the funding of schools prevail (Forsey et al., 2017). To understand the factors contributing to people’s fairness perceptions, we exam- ined people’s financial situation and parental status as variables representing self- interest. Studies have found that people who believed they had higher social posi- tions perceived inequality as less unfair (Brown-Iannuzzi et  al., 2015; Hvidberg et al., 2020). For example, Brown-Iannuzzi et al. (2015) found that individuals with higher subjective status were more likely to consider inequality as fair, less likely to consider redistribution as fair, and less likely to support redistribution. Brown-Ian- nuzzi et al. (2015) further explained that subjective status elicited patterns of policy preferences that were consistent with self-interest, and their policy preferences were justified by their beliefs about fairness. We also considered the effect of having chil- dren in the school system. For instance, people with children may give salience to the role of education in securing the life chances of their children. In contrast, peo- ple without children may give salience to the role of education in building a compe- tent workforce. The prominence given to the different roles of education may influ- ence people’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality. 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey Finally, we considered that a pervasive neoliberal orientation towards social policy may influence people’s fairness perceptions. Some advocates of neoliberal educational reforms argue that parents should be able to purchase education, like how they buy groceries at a supermarket, where competition brings better prod- ucts at cheaper prices (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018). People with such a perspective are likely to perceive that it is fair to pay higher prices for higher-quality educa- tion. Conversely, they are likely to consider it fair to provide lower-quality education to children whose parents cannot afford higher prices. Thus, the research questions in this article are: (1) Do people perceive educational inequality based on parental financial capacity as fair? (2) Are people’s perceptions of fairness predicted by self- interest and neoliberal orientations? Methods Participants The data presented in this article came from a larger study that investigated peo- ple’s views about educational equity. Participants (N = 1999) were adults between 18 and 89 years old (M = 50.1, SD = 17.3) from the state of New South Wales (NSW), where 32% of the Australian population resides (ABS, 2020). A quota sample was employed to ensure that the study sample resembled the NSW adult popula- tion regarding five key demographic variables: age, gender, education, income, and region. Qualtrics Panels assisted with recruitment and sampling. The sociodemo- graphic information of the study sample is shown in Table 1. The demographic composition of the study sample was similar to that of the NSW population reported in the 2016 Census (ABS, 2017, 2018). However, the study sample had higher proportions of people who were female (52% versus 51%), aged 65 or over (27% versus 20%), lived in rural or remote areas (12% versus 6%), had children (66% versus 62%), and had a university degree (35% versus 23%), and a smaller proportion of people who were not in the labour force (34% versus 41%). The 2016 Census provided data on all individuals (e.g., gender) or persons aged 15 or above (e.g., employment). This may explain some of these demographic differences. The percentages of the political party that the respondents voted for also mir- rored the percentages of the first preference for the party in the 2019 federal election (Australian Electoral Commission, 2019). For example, the Liberal–National Coali- tion received 43% of the population vote in NSW, which matches the voting pat- tern in the study sample (when the valid percentages are calculated). People’s politi- cal views could be related to their choice to participate in a survey on educational equity. So, this similarity provided more confidence in the quality of the sample. 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Table 1 Sociodemographic Variable n % information of the participants Gender  Male 948 47.4  Female 1042 52.1  Non-binary or missing 9 0.5 Age group  18–34 486 24.3  35–64 983 49.2  ≥ 65 530 26.5 Region  Metropolitan 1335 66.8  Regional 418 20.9  Rural or remote 246 12.3 Highest level of education  No high school 285 14.3  High school 370 18.5  VET, TAFE, or certificate 637 31.9  University degree 707 35.4 Employment status  Full time 766 38.3  Part time 383 19.2  Unemployed 138 6.9  Not in the labour force 683 34.2  Missing 29 1.5 Party voted for  Liberal–National Coalition 730 36.5  Labor 678 33.9  Greens 163 8.2  Other parties 135 6.8  Did not vote 148 7.4  Prefer not to answer 145 7.3 N = 1999. TAFE technical and further education, VET vocational education and training Data collection We developed the questionnaire from the relevant literature and a small-scale quali- tative survey. Some relevant questions were identified from the literature on public opinion about education and schools (e.g., Leahy & Selwyn, 2019), social attitudes (e.g., Curtice et al., 2019), social values (e.g., Sheppard et al., 2018), and distribu- tive justice (e.g., Marshall et al., 1999). Because those studies were not about edu- cational equity, we modified the relevant questions, e.g., converting an item stat- ing the lack of ability as the cause of poverty to an item stating the lack of ability 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey as the cause of underachievement. Also, a small-scale qualitative survey was con- ducted with the academic and professional staff (N = 89) at the authors’ university to gather their views about issues related to educational equity. Emergent themes and expressions used by the respondents were employed to develop the questionnaire. Subsequently, three academics in relevant fields examined the appropriateness of the wording and the content validity of the questionnaire items. The questionnaire included 60 items about the current state of educational equity in the Australian school system, beliefs and attitudes about educational equity, opinions about educational policy in Australia, preferences for practice and policy strategies to achieve educational equity, and demographic information. The online questionnaire was completed anonymously at the end of 2019. Ethical approval was obtained from the authors’ university. In conducting this study, we adhered to the ethical principles and standards stipulated in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007)—Updated 2018 (National Health & Medical Research Council, 2018). Measures The present study utilised survey items pertinent to answering our research ques- tions. Dependent variables (i.e., fairness perceptions) included fairness of inequal- ity in school resources, fairness of inequality in education quality, and fairness of the scenario. The question about the fairness of inequality in school resources asked whether it is fair that children of affluent families attend schools with more resources, with the definition of ‘resources’ left open for respondents’ interpretation. To assess fairness perceptions of inequality in education quality, respondents were asked whether children of high-income earners should receive a better-quality edu- cation because their parents pay more taxes. Although this question did not use the word ‘fairness’, it was deemed suitable for capturing people’s fairness perceptions as it asked about the propriety of such inequality. The third dependent variable was fairness of the scenario shown below: Think of a society where most of the children from high-income families go to schools with highly qualified and experienced teachers, and most of the chil- dren from low-income families go to schools with poorly qualified and less experienced teachers. As a result, children from high-income families perform better on nationwide tests than children from low-income families. How fair or unfair do you think this is? Student outcomes may be influenced by various school-level factors, such as student composition, school climate, school leadership, teaching, and resources such as school facilities and staffing support. In this scenario, we chose the differ - ence in teacher quality as an example of contrasting school conditions, which was likely to resonate with the public. We note, however, that the actual relationship between teacher ‘quality’ and student outcomes, especially when comparing dif- ferently advantaged educational settings, is by no means clear (Stacey, 2020). The respondents were asked whether this hypothetical situation was fair. Note that the 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… scenario clearly linked achievement gaps to the inequality of educational experi- ences based on family income whereas fairness of inequality in school resources and fairness of inequality in education quality did not. The response options for fairness of the scenario were very unfair, unfair, neither fair nor unfair, fair, and very fair. The response options for fairness of inequality in school resources and fairness of inequality in education quality were converted from the degree of agreement to the degree of fairness. Independent variables were indicators of self-interest (i.e., parental status, financial situation) and neoliberal orientations (i.e., student responsibility, collec- tive responsibility, school competition, and performance-based funding). Parental status included no children, younger children (≤ 18 years), and adult children only. Financial situation referred to the difficulty or ease of making ends meet. For regres- sion analysis, response options were collapsed into three categories: difficult (which included ‘difficult’ and ‘very difficult’), neither easy nor difficult, and easy (which included ‘easy’ and ‘very easy’). The question relating to student responsibility asked whether students are responsible for their own success or failure in school. To assess collective responsibility, respondents were asked whether society is respon- sible for closing achievement gaps. For school competition, respondents indicated their level of agreement with the statement that the quality of education improves when schools compete. The question relating to performance-based funding asked whether performance-based school funding motivates schools to work harder to improve student performance. Although Australia does not have a performance- based funding model, we included this item because it has been recommended by the proponents of neoliberal school systems, such as Hanushek and Lindseth (2009). Furthermore, it would enable us to capture public sentiment regarding competition- based policy technologies. Student responsibility, collective responsibility, school competition, and performance-based funding had a 5-point Likert scale format (from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). Data analysis Because the dependent variables were ordinal variables, an ordinal regression model was employed. As the proportional odds (PO) model is the most used ordinal regres- sion model (Fullerton & Wallace, 2007), the PO model was first fitted to predict fairness perceptions. However, the Brant test indicated that the parallel regressions assumption was violated on several independent variables, which would have led to an incorrect or misleading interpretation of the PO model results (Williams, 2016). Thus, the partial proportional odds (PPO) model was fitted and chosen as the final model. Multinomial and stereotype models were also compared to enhance confi- dence in the choice of model. The PPO model had a smaller Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) than the multinomial or stereotype models (see “Appendix”). For PPO regression analysis, the response options of fairness perception variables were reduced from five to four by collapsing the categories of ‘fair’ and ‘very fair’ because the scenario had a small number of responses in the category of ‘very fair’, 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey which would have resulted in small cell sizes. Given the sizable discrepancy between the study sample and the NSW population regarding employment status and educa- tion, employment status (not in the labour force = 1 and the rest = 0) and education (university degree = 1 and secondary school or lower = 0) were included as control variables. The sample size of PPO regression was decreased (N = 1968) due to miss- ing data. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 17 (StataCorp, 2021). The PPO model was fitted using gologit2 (Williams, 2016), with the autofit option selected to identify variables that needed the proportionality constraints relaxed. Results and discussion Fairness perceptions of educational inequality Regarding the question of whether it is fair that children of affluent families attend schools with more resources, there was almost an equal split between the respond- ents who perceived it as unfair or very unfair (37%) and those who perceived it as fair or very fair (34%) (see Fig.  1). Regarding inequality in education quality, the number of people who chose unfair or very unfair (n = 1178, 59%) was 3.6 times larger than the number of people who chose fair or very fair (n = 327, 16%). Con- cerning the scenario, 6.2 times more people chose unfair or very unfair (n = 1247, 62%), compared to people who chose fair or very fair (n = 198, 10%). Nevertheless, it was notable that over a third of respondents did not consider the scenario unfair or very unfair (28% chose ‘neither fair nor unfair’ and 10% chose ‘fair’ or ‘very fair’), 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% School resources Education quality Scenario Very unfair Unfair Neither fair nor unfair Fair Very fair Fig. 1 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality. N = 1999. Fairness of inequality in school resources asked whether it is fair that children of affluent families attend schools with more resources. Fairness of inequality in education quality asked whether children of high-income earners should receive a better-quality education because their parents pay more taxes. Fairness of the scenario asked: think of a society where most of the children from high-income families go to schools with highly qualified and experienced teachers, and most of the children from low-income families go to schools with poorly quali- fied and less experienced teachers. As a result, children from high-income families perform better on nationwide tests than children from low-income families. How fair or unfair do you think this is? 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… 1 3 Table 2 Descriptive statistics of dependent and independent variables Variable n % M SD Correlation 1 2 3 4 5 6 Parental status  No children 690 34.5  Children ≤ 18 years 685 34.3  Adult children only 624 31.2 Financial situation  Very difficult 168 8.4  Fairly difficult 405 20.3  Neither easy nor difficult 693 34.7  Fairly easy 468 23.4  Very easy 260 13.0  Prefer not to answer 5 0.3 1. Student responsibility 3.16 1.03 – 2. Collective responsibility 4.00 0.89 – 0.10*** – 3. School competition 3.21 1.01 0.22*** – 0.03 – 4. Performance-based school funding 3.29 1.00 0.23*** 0.04 0.41*** – 5. Fairness of inequality in school resources 2.94 1.22 0.26*** – 0.16*** 0.24*** 0.24*** – 6. Fairness of inequality in education quality 2.37 1.11 0.24*** – 0.29*** 0.28*** 0.23*** 0.40*** – 7. Fairness of the scenario 2.14 1.06 0.23*** – 0.34*** 0.22*** 0.19*** 0.37*** 0.46*** N = 1999. M mean, SD standard deviation. The table presents Spearman’s rank-order correlations. ***p < .001 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey despite the obvious unequal educational opportunity presented in the scenario and the prevailing discourse of equal educational opportunity in Australia and globally. As shown in Table 2, the three dependent variables on fairness perceptions of educa- tional inequality were moderately correlated. In addressing the first research question (do people perceive educational inequal- ity based on parental financial capacity as fair?), these results, therefore, confirm a diversity of views. This diversity of fairness perceptions could originate from the use of different criteria. Fairness of distribution primarily depends on relevant cri- teria and relevant side constraints that are applied (Hooker, 2005). In judging the fairness of educational inequality, some respondents might have used the crite- rion of desert, focusing on parents having an output (e.g., the quality of education offered to their children) that accords with their input (e.g., the amount of money spent). This may be particularly the case with the question about resourcing, where respondents might have felt that tangible school resources, such as access to swim- ming pools, are reasonable facilities to be ‘purchased’ via school fees and inequality in such resources is not ‘unfair’ as those facilities, while providing a benefit to stu- dents, may not directly impact educational outcomes. Other respondents, however, might have thought all children have equal rights to learn and thus, it was unfair to have unequal educational experiences. In particular, the explicit connection between unequal educational experiences and students’ achievement gaps made in the sce- nario might have prompted more respondents to utilise the criterion of equality (i.e., equal opportunity in education). The respondents who chose ‘neither fair nor unfair’ might have felt ambivalent about the fairness of educational inequality because they considered both criteria to be relevant. Predicting fairness perceptions of educational inequality PPO regression results confirmed that self-interest and neoliberal orientations pre- dicted fairness perceptions of educational inequality. Figure 2 displays a summary of these results. We next examine these findings in more detail, beginning with parental status and then financial situation, as measures of self-interest; before exploring the findings concerning neoliberal orientations. Details of these findings are presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Parental status First, regarding self-interest, it is evident that the effect of parental status on fairness perceptions differed by the inequality situation. There was no effect of parental sta- tus on the fairness of inequality in school resources. The respondents with adult chil- dren were less likely to endorse the fairness of inequality in education quality and less likely to say the scenario was fair or very fair, compared to respondents without children. The effects of having younger children (≤ 18 years) on fairness perceptions differed by the inequality condition examined. Compared to the respondents with- out children, the respondents with younger children were more likely to perceive inequality in education quality as very unfair and at the same time were more likely to endorse the fairness of the scenario. 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… 1 3 Inequality in school resources Inequality in education quality Scenario 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F Younger children Adult children Younger children Adult children Younger children Adult children Financially neutral Financially Easy Financially neutral Financially Easy Financially neutral Financially Easy 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F Student responsibility Collective responsibility Student responsibility Collective responsibility Student responsibility Collective responsibility School competition Performance-based funding School competition Performance-based funding School competition Performance-based funding Fig. 2 Odds ratios from partial proportional ordinal regression predicting fairness perceptions of educational inequality. N = 1968. VU very unfair, U unfair, N neither fair nor unfair, F fair or very fair. Reference groups for categorical variables are ‘no children’ and ‘financially difficult’. Only statistically significantly different odd ratios are presented J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey Table 3 Partial proportional ordinal regression predicting fairness perceptions of inequality in school resources Variable VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI University degree 1.00 [0.84, 1.19] Not in the labour force 0.75** [0.62, 0.91] Parental status (no children)  Children ≤ 18 years 1.14 [0.93, 1.40]  Adult children only 0.89 [0.72, 1.11] Financial situation (difficult)  Neither difficult nor easy 1.48* [1.10, 2.01] 1.17 [0.93, 1.48] 0.99 [0.78, 1.26]  Easy 1.29* [1.05, 1.60] Student responsibility 1.37*** [1.25, 1.49] Collective responsibility 0.36*** [0.29, 0.43] 0.54*** [0.48, 0.62] 0.95 [0.84, 1.06] School competition 1.34*** [1.22, 1.47] Performance-based school 1.47*** [1.29, 1.68] 1.29*** [1.15, 1.44] 1.46*** [1.29, 1.64] funding Intercept 19.18*** [6.84, 53.75] 1.28 [0.64, 2.55] 0.03*** [0.01, 0.05] n = 1968, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, VU very unfair, U unfair, N neither fair nor unfair, F fair or very fair. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. Reference groups are in parentheses. Only one set of coefficients is presented for variables that meet the proportionality assumption, whereas three coefficients are displayed for variables that did not meet the assumption Table 4 Partial proportional ordinal regression predicting fairness perceptions of inequality in education quality Variable VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI University degree 1.00 [0.83, 1.19] Not in the labour force 0.73*** [0.60, 0.88] Parental status (no children)  Children ≤ 18 years 0.68** [0.52, 0.89] 0.80 [0.63, 1.01] 1.25 [0.94, 1.67]  Adult children only 0.66** [0.49, 0.88] 0.41*** [0.32, 0.54] 0.42*** [0.29, 0.61] Financial situation (difficult)  Neither difficult nor easy 1.63*** [1.24, 2.13] 1.08 [0.84, 1.38] 0.72 [0.51, 1.01]  Easy 1.62*** [1.24, 2.13] 1.00 [0.78, 1.28] 1.06 [0.79, 1.44] Student responsibility 1.11 [0.99, 1.23] 1.34*** [1.20, 1.49] 1.48*** [1.29, 1.70] Collective responsibility 0.44*** [0.38, 0.52] 0.55*** [0.49, 0.62] 0.76** [0.65, 0.89] School competition 1.45*** [1.32, 1.59] Performance-based school 1.26*** [1.12, 1.41] 1.49*** [1.32, 1.68] 1.86*** [1.56, 2.23] funding Intercept 10.48*** [4.45, 24.68] 0.35** [0.18, 0.71] 0.01*** [0.00, 0.02] n = 1968, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, VU very unfair, U unfair, N neither fair nor unfair, F fair or very fair. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. Reference groups are in parentheses. Only one set of coefficients is presented for variables that meet the proportionality assumption, whereas three coefficients are displayed for variables that did not meet the assumption 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Table 5 Partial proportional ordinal regression predicting fairness perceptions of the scenario Variable VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI University degree 1.10 [0.92, 1.32] Not in the labour force 0.85 [0.70, 1.04] Parental status (no children)  Children ≤ 18 years 1.25* [1.02, 1.53]  Adult children only 1.01 [0.79, 1.30] 0.97 [0.75, 1.25] 0.50** [0.33, 0.76] Financial situation (difficult)  Neither difficult nor easy 1.56*** [1.23, 1.99] 1.41** [1.10, 1.80] 0.70 [0.48, 1.04]  Easy 1.74*** [1.40, 2.16] Student responsibility 1.21*** [1.09, 1.34] 1.39*** [1.25, 1.55] 1.45*** [1.23, 1.71] Collective responsibility 0.42*** [0.37, 0.48] 0.45*** [0.40, 0.51] 0.64*** [0.54, 0.76] School competition 1.31*** [1.19, 1.44] Performance-based school fund- 1.30*** [1.16, 1.45] 1.21** [1.07, 1.37] 1.79*** [1.47, 2.18] ing Intercept 4.15*** [1.98, 8.67] 0.71 [0.36, 1.41] 0.01*** [0.00, 0.02] N = 1968, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, VU very unfair, U unfair, N neither fair nor unfair, F fair or very fair. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. Reference groups are in parentheses. Only one set of coefficients is presented for variables that meet the proportionality assumption, whereas three coefficients are displayed for variables that did not meet the assumption In interpreting these results, it is possible that parents of current or future school-going children might have paid more attention to the social mobility goal of education. Under this goal, education becomes a private good designed to prepare individuals for successful competition for more desirable social posi- tions (Labaree, 1997). This reflects the research literature on school choice and parental engagement in schooling, where sending children to a school with high performance or a good reputation is considered a marker of good parenting (Proc- tor & Aitchison, 2015). It is perhaps unsurprising that parents, if understood as self-interested education consumers, may desire a stratified education system like the scenario. Conversely, from the perspectives of citizens and taxpayers, schools should provide good-quality education to all children to produce competent citi- zens and skilled workers (Labaree, 1997). The respondents without children or with adult children might have prioritised these alternative societal goals and per- ceived the scenario as more unfair. However, parental status was not a significant predictor of fairness perceptions of ine- quality in school resources and had somewhat opposite effects on fairness perceptions of inequality in education quality. Unlike the scenario, these two inequality conditions did not clearly link achievement gaps to unequal educational experiences. Moreover, inequality in education quality was not clearly specified as inequality at the school level. It might be that some respondents with current or future school-going children inter- preted it as receiving education with differing qualities within the same school and thus, perceived it as very unfair. Given the intricacies, the effects of parental status on fairness perceptions need further investigation. 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey Financial situation The regression results also revealed that the respondents with financial comfort (another element of self-interest) tended to perceive education inequality based on parental financial capacity as fair. There were significant effects of financial situation on all fairness perception variables, and overall, financially comfortable respondents were more likely to endorse the fairness of educational inequality across all fairness perception variables than those with financial difficulty. This finding broadly sup- ports the idea that people’s fairness perceptions of inequality depend on their social positions (Brown-Iannuzzi et  al., 2015; Hvidberg et  al., 2020), albeit focusing on different inequalities (i.e., educational versus economic). A possible explanation is that people give salience to different criteria in judging fairness depending on their circumstances (Elenbaas, 2019). Another potential explanation is that compared to people with lower socioeconomic status, people with higher socioeconomic status have a stronger focus on the self and reduced concerns for others (Manstead, 2018). In judging the fairness of educational inequality, financially comfortable respond- ents might have prioritised the correspondence between the costs and benefits, which serves their own interest—they have the greater purchasing power to win the competition in the ‘education market’. Conversely, respondents with financial diffi- culty might have given salience to equal educational opportunities. Neoliberal orientations Finally, neoliberal orientations significantly predicted fairness perceptions of educa- tional inequality. Across all fairness perception variables, the more people favoured individual students’ responsibility, school competition, and performance-based school funding—neoliberal policy instruments, the more they endorsed the fairness of educa- tional inequality. On the contrary, the more people agreed with the collective respon- sibility to close achievement gaps, the less they endorsed the fairness of educational inequality. With the rise of neoliberalism, education systems worldwide have imple- mented reforms toward marketisation and privatisation. In this settlement, education has become commodified, and parents have become consumers of education for their children (Ball, 2004). For people who endorse such directions, it would be considered fair to receive a better educational ‘service’ when paying more. Thus, in the ‘education market’, unequal educational experiences based on parental financial capacity are the consequences of fair transactions and thus, equitable. The consistent effects of neolib- eral orientations on all fairness perception variables found in the present study seem to indicate the considerable influence of neoliberalism on the public’s views of education. To further illustrate the effects of self-interest and neoliberal orientations on the fairness of educational inequality, we also examined the predicted probabilities. Fig- ure  3 displays the average adjusted prediction of fairness of the scenario by self- interest and neoliberal orientations (given the consistent effects of neoliberal orien- tations, figures for two other inequality conditions are almost identical). According to the PPO regression predicting the scenario, all things being equal, the probabil- ity of choosing very unfair was 7% among respondents with self-interest and neo- liberal orientations, whereas the probability was 78% among respondents with no 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Very unfair Unfair NeutralFair or Very fair Interest and neoliberal No-interest and non-neoliberal Fig. 3 Average adjusted prediction of fairness perceptions of the scenario by self-interest and neoliberal orientations. Interest refers to ‘younger children’ and ‘financially comfortable’. No-interest refers to ‘no children’ and ‘financial difficulty’. Neoliberal refers to high student responsibility, low collective respon- sibility, high school competition, and high performance-based school funding. Non-neoliberal refers to low student responsibility, high collective responsibility, low school competition, and low performance- based school funding. Low = mean ‒ 1 standard deviation; high = mean + 1 standard deviation self-interest and non-neoliberal orientations. Conversely, holding other variables constant, the probability of choosing fair or very fair was 40% among the respond- ents with self-interest and neoliberal orientations but was 1% among respondents with no self-interest and non-neoliberal orientations. Implications Although fairness perceptions of educational inequality were diverse, most respondents perceived the scenario as unfair or very unfair. This contrasts with the current reality of the Australian school system, which features considerable inequality in access to educational provision through the public subsidisation of fee-charging private schools. Despite the supposed adoption of needs-based school funding under the Gonski model, some public schools still struggle to meet the stated level of need (Cobbold, 2019), while some private schools flaunt extravagant facilities (Baker, 2022). Yet, Austral- ia’s current market-based, choice-oriented school system is rarely questioned (Stacey, 2022). This may be due to a normalisation of the idea of school choice (Stacey, 2022) and, indeed, a ‘discourse of choice’ more broadly (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014). The idea of choice can be difficult to argue with and may appear to many as an inherent good in which parents have enhanced autonomy and involvement in their children’s education. While in practice, such choice is largely illusory—the basis on which to ‘choose’ is a ‘myth of an equal playing field’ (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014, p. 1580), people may understand choice of school as simply a parental right rather than a mechanism of social reproduction. As such, the results of this study are encourag- ing. While people’s opinions about the fairness of inequality in school resources were evenly divided, most respondents perceived inequality in education quality and teacher quality as unfair, particularly when achievement gaps were clearly linked to unequal 1 3 Probability J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey educational experiences. The Australian public might not fully comprehend or appre- ciate a clear pattern of segregation along socioeconomic lines and the subsequent achievement gaps brought by school choice, partly due to the success of the discourse of school choice in obscuring its role in social reproduction. This suggests that if the inequitable effects of school choice in the Australian school system were more widely known and understood, then support for system change may be easier to garner. In addition, the findings of this study imply that in an era largely dominated by neoliberalism, in which public goods and services are reconceptualised as pri- vate commodities, it is crucial to reinforce the idea of education as a public good. Whether education is a public good or commodity has broad implications for how education is organised, administered, and funded (Grace, 1989). If education is solely a private commodity to be traded, there are limited rationales for state inter- ventions and public funding (Grace, 1989), and education is likely to function as a mechanism that keeps marginalised families in an intergenerational cycle of dis- advantage. According to Kaul and Mendoza (2003), repeated effort is required to firmly establish a good as private or public. Therefore, under the onslaught of neo- liberalism, the idea of education as a public good would need to be actively advo- cated and defended. Limitations and future directions Limitations of this study relate to sampling technique, social desirability bias, meas- ures, and geographical location. First, we used a quota sampling technique to ensure that the study sample adequately reflected the NSW population. Future studies with representative samples would bring a more robust understanding of the public’s fair- ness perceptions about educational inequality. Second, social desirability bias cannot be excluded. For example, it is possible that some respondents felt uncomfortable saying the scenario was fair even when they thought so. Future studies could explic- itly measure social desirability bias or employ strategies to reduce the risk (e.g., by asking what their neighbours might think). Third, measures used in this study are limited and require further development. Due to the scarcity of literature on public opinion about educational equity, we developed our survey questions by modifying questions from relevant literature and utilising the findings of a qualitative survey. Future studies are needed to further develop and validate survey questions designed to capture public opinion about the fairness of educational inequality. Relatedly, although the present study included variables representing important characteristics of neoliberal educational policies, future studies could include other measures of neoliberal orientations. For example, studies may explicitly ask whether education is a commodity, what the goal of education is, or whether education should be left to the market. Finally, we note that the present study is based on a survey of adults in the most populous state in Australia. As fairness perceptions differ by culture (Schäfer et  al., 2015), international comparison studies could gain a more sophis- ticated understanding of fairness perceptions of educational inequality across cul- tures. Furthermore, future studies comparing fairness perceptions in different policy contexts could provide even more policy-relevant findings. 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Conclusion The results of this study indicate that despite the normalisation of the market-based, choice-oriented school system in Australia and its inequitable effects (Thomson, 2021), many Australians consider educational inequality based on parental financial capacity unfair, particularly when clear links between unequal educational experi- ences and achievement gaps are presented. However, people’s fairness perceptions depended on self-interest and neoliberal orientations. Self-interest and neoliberal orientations appeared to be linked to a consumer approach to education that con- siders education a private commodity. From the consumer perspective, educational inequality is not a problem but an outcome of fair trade. For education to function as a social equaliser, a view of education as a public good would need to be firmly established and actively promoted. The unfairness of educational inequality is often used as a rationale for develop- ing policy measures to reduce educational inequity. However, there has been lim- ited knowledge about the public’s perceptions of the fairness of educational inequal- ity. Although many factors influence policy decisions, public support is needed for politically feasible policymaking. People’s fairness perceptions of inequality are associated with their preferences for policy measures designed to reduce inequality. Therefore, it is important to understand further the fairness perceptions of educa- tional inequality to generate public support for equity-oriented educational policy. The present study offers valuable insights into people’s perceptions of the fairness of socioeconomic educational inequality and suggests that unmasking the conse- quences of inequitable education systems and promoting education as a public good may inspire considerable public support for change to education systems. Appendix See Table 6. Table 6 Model comparisons Fairness perception variables Partial proportional Multinomial Stereotype Inequality in school resources  Log-likelihood – 2387.4 – 2395.9 – 2463.6  AIC 4812.7 4857.9 4957.1  BIC 4918.9 5042.2 5040.9 Inequality in education quality  Log-likelihood – 2341.8 – 2343.2 – 2424.4  AIC 4737.6 4752.5 4878.8  BIC 4888.4 4936.8 4962.5 Scenario  Log-likelihood – 2284.7 – 2287.2 – 2336.0  AIC 4615.3 4640.3 4702.0  BIC 4743.8 4824.6 4785.8 AIC Akaike’s information criterion, BIC Bayesian information criterion 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey Acknowledgements The authors thank the respondents for their generosity in sharing their views; the anonymous reviewers and Professor Thomas M. Besch for helpful comments; Professor Jihyun Lee, Ms Alyssa Preval, and Dr Prasheela Karan for their assistance in this project; and Professor Pasi Sahlberg, Dr Sally Baker, Dr Courtenay Atwell, and other members of the Gonski Institute for Education for their feedback on the survey questionnaire. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. Funding for this project was provided by the Gonski Institute for Education at UNSW Sydney. Conflict of interests The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. Ethical approval Ethical approval was granted through the University of New South Wales: HC190460. In conducting this study, the authors adhered to the ethical principles and standards stipulated in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) - Updated 2018 (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2018). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Abowitz, K. K., & Stitzlein, S. M. (2018). Public schools, public goods, and public work. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(3), 33–37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00317 21718 808262 Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G.-M. (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American Economic Review, 95(4), 960–980. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ 00028 28054 825655 Amable, B. (2010). Morals and politics in the ideology of neo-liberalism. Socio-Economic Review, 9(1), 3–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ser/ mwq015 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). 2016 Census QuickStats. https:// quick stats. censu sdata. abs. gov. au/ census_ servi ces/ getpr oduct/ census/ 2016/ quick stat/1 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). 3218.0: Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2016–2017. https:// www. abs. gov. au/ AUSST ATS/ abs@. nsf/ Detai lsPage/ 3218. 02016- 17? OpenD ocume nt Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). National, State and Territory Population. https:// www. abs. gov. au/ stati stics/ people/ popul ation/ natio nal- state- and- terri tory- popul ation/ dec- 2019 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Schools, Australia 2020. https:// www. abs. gov. au/ stati stics/ people/ educa tion/ schoo ls/ latest- relea se Australian Electoral Commission. (2019). First Preferences by Party: NSW. https:// resul ts. aec. gov. au/ 24310/ Websi te/ House State First Prefs ByPar ty- 24310- NSW. htm Baker, J. (2022). Private school funding exposes the nation’s lack of heart. The Sydney Morning Herald. https:// www. smh. com. au/ natio nal/ priva te- school- fundi ng- expos es- the- nation- s- lack- of- heart- 20220 629- p5axoo. html Ball, S. (2004). Education for sale! The commodification of everything? King’s Annual Education Lecture 2004. University of London. Beddoes, K., & Pawley, A. L. (2014). “Different people have different priorities”: Work-family bal- ance, gender, and the discourse of choice. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1573–1585. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2013. 801432 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Lundberg, K. B., Kay, A. C., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26(1), 15–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09567 97614 Campbell, C., & Proctor, H. (2014). A history of Australian schooling. Allen & Unwin. Campbell, C., Proctor, H., & Sherington, G. (2009). School choice: How parents negotiate the new school market in Australia. Allen & Unwin. Cobbold, T. (2019). The state of school funding in Australia 2017. https:// saveo ursch ools. com. au/ fundi ng/ the- facts- about- school- fundi ng- in- austr alia/ Curtice, J., Clery, E., Perry, J. M. P. & Rahim, N. (2019). British Social Attitudes: The 36th report. https:// www. bsa. natcen. ac. uk/ media/ 39363/ bsa_ 36. pdf Elenbaas, L. (2019). Perceived access to resources and young children’s fairness judgments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 188, 104667. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jecp. 2019. 104667 Forsey, M., Proctor, H., & Stacey, M. (2017). A most poisonous debate: Legitimizing support for Aus- tralian private schools. In T. Koinzer, R. Nikolai & F. Waldow (Eds.), Private schools and school choice in compulsory education: Global change and national challenge. Springer. Fullerton, A. S., & Wallace, M. (2007). Traversing the flexible turn: US workers’ perceptions of job secu- rity, 1977–2002. Social Science Research, 36(1), 201–221. García-Sánchez, E., Osborne, D., Willis, G. B., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2020). Attitudes towards redis- tribution and the interplay between perceptions and beliefs about inequality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 111–136. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjso. 12326 Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011). Review of fund- ing for schooling: Final report. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. https:// docs. educa tion. gov. au/ system/ files/ doc/ other/ review- of- fundi ng- for- schoo ling- final- report- dec- 2011. pdf Grace, G. (1989). Education: Commodity or public good? British Journal of Educational Studies, 37(3), 207–221. Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Performance-based funding. Defining Ideas, 101‒105. https:// www. hoover. org/ resea rch/ perfo rmance- based- fundi ng Hooker, B. (2005). Fairness. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 8(4), 329–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10677- 005- 8836-2 Hvidberg, K. B., Kreiner, C., & Stantcheva, S. (2020). Social position and fairness views. National Bureau of Economic Research. https:// www. nber. org/ papers/ w28099 Kaul, I., & Mendoza, R. U. (2003). Advancing the concept of public goods. In I. Kaul (Ed.), Providing global public goods: Managing globalization (pp. 78–111). Oxford University Press. Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. Amer- ican Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00028 31203 40010 39 Leahy, D., & Selwyn, N. (2019). Public opinions on Australian schools & schooling. https:// resea rchmgt. monash. edu/ ws/ porta lfiles/ portal/ 26222 9360/ 26222 9303_ oa. pdf Manstead, A. S. R. (2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 267–291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjso. 12251 Marshall, G., Swift, A., Routh, D., & Burgoyne, C. (1999). What is and what ought to be popular beliefs about distributive justice in thirteen countries. European Sociological Review, 15(4), 349–367. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oxfor djour nals. esr. a0182 70 Mijs, J. J. B. (2019). The paradox of inequality: Income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. Socio-Economic Review, 19(1), 7–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ser/ mwy051 Mudge, S. L. (2008). What is neo-liberalism? Socio-Economic Review, 6(4), 703–731. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ser/ mwn016 National Health and Medical Research Council. (2018). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007): Updated 2018. National Health and Medical Research Council. https:// www . nhmr c. gov . au/ about- us/ publi catio ns/ natio nal- s t ate ment- e t hic al- condu ct- human- r esea r ch- 2007- updat ed- 2018 OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. OECD Publishing. https:// www. oecd- ilibr ary. org/ educa tion/ equity- in- educa tion_ 97892 64073 234- en 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey OECD. (2019). Balancing school choice and equity: An international perspective based on PISA. OECD Publishing. https:// www. oecd. org/ publi catio ns/ balan cing- school- choice- and- equity- 2592c 974- en. htm Olsen, J. A. (2011). Concepts of equity and fairness in health and health care. In S. Glied & P. C. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of health economics. Oxford University Press. Parker, P., Guo, J., & Sanders, T. (2019). Socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes in Australia. In L. Volante, S. V. Schnepf, J. Jerrim, & D. A. Klinger (Eds.), Socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes: Cross-national trends, policies, and practices (pp. 189–204). Springer. Proctor, H., & Aitchison, C. (2015). Markets in education: “School choice” and family capital. In G. Meagher & S. Goodwin (Eds.), Markets, rights and power in Australian social policy (pp. 323– 341). Sydney University Press. Rowe, E. E., & Lubienski, C. (2017). Shopping for schools or shopping for peers: Public schools and catchment area segregation. Journal of Education Policy, 32(3), 340–356. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02680 939. 2016. 12633 63 Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global education reform movement and its impact on schooling. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 128–144). Wiley. Schäfer, M., Haun, D. B. M., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Fair is not fair everywhere. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1252–1260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09567 97615 586188 Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. https:// www. oecd. org/ pisa/ PISA% 202018% 20Ins ights% 20and% 20Int erpre tatio ns% 20FIN AL% 20PDF. pdf Sciffer, M. G., Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2022). Does school socioeconomic composition matter more in some countries than others, and if so, why? Comparative Education, 58(1), 37–51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03050 068. 2021. 20130 45 Sheppard, J., McAllister, I., & Makkai, T. (2018). Australian values study. https:// www. srcen tre. com. au/ ausva lues Stacey, M. (2020). The business of teaching: Becoming a teacher in a market of schools. Palgrave Macmillan. Stacey, M. (2022). Pre-service teachers’ views of schools as workplaces in a system of social, cultural and religious division: To be “selfish” or to be a “hero”? Educational Review. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00131 911. 2022. 20273 47 Stacey, M., & Mockler, N. (2023). Purposes of education: Freedom of the individual or “collective good”? In A. Wilkins (Ed.), Policy foundations of education (pp. 33–58). Bloomsbury. StataCorp. (2021). Stata statistical software: Release 17. StataCorp LLC. Thomson, S. (2021). Australia: PISA Australia: Excellence and equity? In N. Crato (Ed.), Improving a country’s education (pp. 25–47). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 59031-4_2 UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). Handbook on measuring equity in education. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. UNICEF Office of Research. (2018). An unfair start: Inequality in children’s education in rich countries, Innocenti Report Card 15. UNICEF Office of Research. Valant, J., & Newark, D. A. (2016). The politics of achievement gaps: U.S. Public opinion on race-based and wealth-based differences in test scores. Educational Researcher, 45(6), 331–346. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00131 89x16 658447 Williams, R. (2016). Understanding and interpreting generalized ordered logit models. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(1), 7–20. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Jung‑Sook Lee is an Associate Professor in the UNSW School of Social Sciences. She received her Ph.D. and M.S.W. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. Her research focuses on educa- tional and social policy provisions to break the cycle of intergenerational disadvantages. She has authored papers on the wellbeing of vulnerable children and families, educational equity, home-school partner- ships, and school social work. 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Meghan Stacey is a Senior Lecturer in the UNSW School of Education, researching in the fields of the Sociology of Education and Education Policy. Taking a particular interest in teachers, her research con- siders how teachers’ work is framed by policy, as well as the effects of such policy for those who work with, within and against it. Meghan completed her Ph.D. with the University of Sydney in 2018. Before this, she worked for a number of years as an English and Drama teacher in public secondary schools in NSW, in particular in the Riverina region. 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Australian Educational Researcher Springer Journals

Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects of self-interest and neoliberal orientations

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/fairness-perceptions-of-educational-inequality-the-effects-of-self-fhCTIIB7na

References (34)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
ISSN
0311-6999
eISSN
2210-5328
DOI
10.1007/s13384-023-00636-6
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The Australian education system features considerable socioeconomic inequality and is a frequent source of controversy in Australian public life. Yet meaningful reform to this system has proven elusive. In this article, we examine the public’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality based on parental financial capacity, using an online survey of adults (N = 1,999) from New South Wales, Australia. We asked about the fairness of inequality in school resources and education quality, and used a scenario in which students from high-income and low-income families had achievement gaps due to differences in educational experiences. Respondents had diverse perceptions about the fairness of educational inequality, but most perceived the scenario as unfair or very unfair. The partial proportional odds models showed that self-interest and neoliberal orientations predicted people’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality. The findings of this study have implications for achiev - ing meaningful reform of the Australian education system that is in line with public opinion. Keywords Fairness perceptions · Educational equity · Public opinion · Neoliberalism · Socioeconomic status Introduction ‘Fairness’ in contemporary education systems is frequently the focus of popular and political consternation. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment (OECD), for example, collects data on equity in education systems, particularly * Jung-Sook Lee js.lee@unsw.edu.au Meghan Stacey m.stacey@unsw.edu.au School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey the degree to which educational outcomes can be linked to categories of advantage or disadvantage, such as socioeconomic status (OECD, 2018). In Australia, equity has also been a purported policy focus, with national declarations on schooling over the past 25 years citing equity in education as a core goal (Stacey & Mockler, 2023). And yet, the OECD has designated the Australian system of public and private schools as one of the most highly segregated in the world (OECD, 2019). The Aus- tralian school system features persistent gaps in achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged students and is the subject of frequent public debate (although seemingly little policy action) regarding the public subsidisation of wealthy, fee- charging private schools (Cobbold, 2019). Australia, therefore, makes for an inter- esting case internationally when considering fairness perceptions in education, by examining whether structural inequality is perceived by the public as inequitable. This case can thereby provide insight into how public opinion may function to sup- port such a controversial, yet seemingly intractable, public policy settlement as that currently found in Australia. As such, in this article, we examine people’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality based on parental financial capacity and the factors that influence their fairness perceptions, from the market-oriented context of the Australian education system. The Australian school system The Australian school system includes a large private sector in which schools can charge fees without limit. Approximately 35% of students attend independent or Catholic private schools (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2021), with the sec- tor having expanded considerably since the 1980s (Stacey, 2020). The Australian school sectors, while highly internally diverse, also feature a clear pattern of segre- gation. According to Thomson (2021), 41% of government schools can be catego- rised as ‘disadvantaged schools’ compared to just 3% of Catholic schools and less than 1% of independent schools, where disadvantaged schools are defined as ‘those whose average intake of students falls in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status’ (p. 42). Despite this pattern of segregation, the Australian government provides some financial support to all schools, including those that charge fees. School fund- ing in Australia is a frequent topic of, at times, ‘poisonous’ debate in Australian public life (Forsey et  al., 2017). A good example of this are the ‘Gonski’ reforms to school funding, which came with a substantial price tag given the committee’s remit to ensure that no school would ‘lose a dollar’ (Gonski et  al., 2011, p. xvii). Australia has purportedly moved to a ‘needs-based’ funding system based on the Gonski model; however, reports abound that while private schools are often funded above their stated level of need, many public schools are yet to achieve their base level of funding and are unlikely to do so under recent projections (Cobbold, 2019). Indeed, there remain considerable disparities in material resources between schools. As Thomson (2021) summarises: While many government schools struggle with outdated and worn out facili- ties, lack of physical resources such as photocopy paper, broken down or 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… inadequate toilet facilities and a lack of teaching staff, some elite independent schools are spending astonishing amounts of money on capital works, includ- ing theatres with orchestra pits, indoor Olympic size swimming pools, well- ness centres, and equestrian centres. (p. 30) In addition to this, human resources and staffing can also vary considerably across schools according to their capacity to hire additional staff support (Stacey, 2020). The Australian system of market-based education has had particular implications for parents who may feel pressure to be a ‘good parent’ by strategically choosing a school for their children. Choice of school can be made in consideration of factors including family tradition, location, religious or secular values, and the desire to be near ‘people like us’ (Campbell et al., 2009). Choosing a ‘good’ school rather than simply sending one’s child to the local public school is, it would seem, increasingly considered a marker of good parenting, especially mothering (Proctor & Aitchison, 2015). These choices reflect a commercialisation of parenting (Ball, 2004), in which parents craft their children by purchasing educational opportunities. Even when par- ents are concerned about social justice issues, this appears to have limits in influenc- ing their interaction with the system. For instance, in Rowe and Lubienski (2017), parents who avowed an ideological preference for public education still sought to have their children attend schools with others ‘like them’. Indeed, while school funding amounts are often debated, the market-based, choice-driven structure of the system is rarely questioned (Stacey, 2022). This reflects how school choice has become a kind of ‘newly invented fundamental right’ (Campbell & Proctor, 2014, p. 225) for Australian parents. Indeed, a ‘discourse of choice’ is arguably a core part of neoliberal social settlements more broadly, with choice understood primarily as an inherent good for the individual rather than as a potential mechanism of social inequality (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014). In the mar- ketised education system, good parents are good consumers of education, with the good of one’s children appearing to take precedence over the concerns of the collective. Neoliberalism and educational inequality The normalisation of choice in Australia is despite evidence of the adverse impli- cations of such a system for the equitable achievements of students. For example, Sciffer et  al. (2022) investigated the effects of the socioeconomic composition of students in a school on individual students’ outcomes as a way of understanding the effects of school segregation on school effectiveness. It was assumed that segregat- ing low SES students into low SES schools exacerbates pre-existing social inequali- ties as it adds school-level disadvantage above individual-level disadvantage. Sciffer et  al. (2022) found that Australia alongside the United Kingdom, had the highest socioeconomic compositional effects among English-speaking countries, a finding they attributed to Australia’s support for private schooling. Similarly, Parker et  al. (2019) argue that a rapid increase in between-school stratification in achievement over the last 10‒20 years in Australia is most likely driven by an increase in school choice and the change of its nature and importance—school choice has become a 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey central parenting concern and a mechanism of class divides (Parker et  al., 2019). While Australia is particularly extreme in segregating its students across schools and sectors, achievement gaps associated with students’ socioeconomic backgrounds have been a persistent problem for many countries (Schleicher, 2019), and the ‘seg- regation of students along social and economic lines contributes to the persistence of inequalities due to family background’ (UNICEF Office of Research, 2018, p. 38). As such, data from Australia may prove internationally instructive when considering the public opinion that may underlie inequitable education systems and structures. Behind this international pattern of achievement gaps is, arguably, a neoliberal approach to the management of education. Educational reforms driven by neolib- eralism have exacerbated educational inequity in many countries including, but not limited to, Australia (Sahlberg, 2016). The common core of neoliberalism is the primacy of market-based competition (Mudge, 2008) and the norm of individual responsibility or self-reliance (Amable, 2010). Accordingly, many public sectors, including education, have undergone reforms characterised by deregulation, mar- ketisation, and privatisation (Sahlberg, 2016). Private providers have been brought in to perform many tasks in the education system, and public education has been made to mimic the private sector (Ball, 2004). Since the late 1980s, the Australian school system has embraced not only the school choice model described above but also the complementary neoliberal policy technologies of test-based accountability, an emphasis on individualised teacher quality, and the use of private sector manage- ment practices (Stacey & Mockler, 2023). As neoliberalism operates as a pervasive social, cultural, and economic logic internationally, in this article, we examine the public’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality based on parental financial capacity, from the Australian context in which a particularly extreme educational market logic operates alongside competing notions of egalitarianism and a ‘fair go’. Fairness perceptions Fairness is understood in many different ways. The notion of fairness is often used in a broad sense to refer to things that seem right, legitimate, or justified (Hooker, 2005; Olsen, 2011). In this broad sense, the notions of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ are often used interchangeably. In a narrower sense, fairness is commonly considered as applying the same rules impartially and equally to each agent (i.e., formal fairness) (Hooker, 2005). But it is possible to apply bad or partial rules to all claimants impar- tially and equally (Hooker, 2005). Accordingly, ‘substantive’ fairness moves beyond mere impartial applications of rules and considers the appropriateness of rules to be applied. In a distributive context, fairness requires an appropriate satisfaction of rel- evant claims in accordance with relevant criteria (e.g., desert, agreement, or needs) and relevant side constraints (e.g., moral obligations) (Hooker, 2005). In education, the concept of fairness is mainly discussed in relation to equity. Equity implies equality (i.e., equal treatment of equals) and the appropriate accom- modation of differences. In the education context, equality is often used in conjunc- tion with educational opportunities, not educational outcomes. Some inequalities are considered fair (Olsen, 2011), e.g., differing scores given to excellent performance 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… and poor performance in a mathematics exam. When inequality is considered unfair, it is inequity (Olsen, 2011). An unequal distribution of educational opportunities based on students’ social and family backgrounds is commonly considered unfair and thus, inequitable. Nevertheless, people may have different views about the crite- ria to be used and the side constraints to be considered in determining the fairness of distribution. Indeed, fairness or justice can mean different things to different people (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2018), leading to divergent views of fairness even when presented with the same situation. It is important to understand divergent views of what is ‘fair’, given that the public’s fairness perceptions of inequality can determine their support for policies designed to reduce inequality. For instance, Alesina and Angeletos (2005) demon- strated that society’s beliefs about the fairness of income inequality influenced its choice of redistributive policy. Studies have also found that if people believed that inequality was meritocratically deserving, they were less concerned about inequal- ity (Mijs, 2019) and less likely to support policies designed to reduce inequality (García-Sánchez et  al., 2020). Although public support may not be necessary or sufficient for policy implementation, public opinion can constrain or enable policy decisions as elected policymakers have incentives to stay close to the majority opin- ion (Valant & Newark, 2016). Thus, it is essential to understand the public’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality to develop equity-oriented educational policies that are supported by the public. The present study In this study, we investigated people’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality based on parental financial capacity. The public’s views about educational inequal- ity and initiatives to reduce it have received little attention from researchers (Valant & Newark, 2016). Such an omission is particularly notable in Australia, an ostensi- bly ‘egalitarian’ country where considerable gaps in educational attainment and the funding of schools prevail (Forsey et al., 2017). To understand the factors contributing to people’s fairness perceptions, we exam- ined people’s financial situation and parental status as variables representing self- interest. Studies have found that people who believed they had higher social posi- tions perceived inequality as less unfair (Brown-Iannuzzi et  al., 2015; Hvidberg et al., 2020). For example, Brown-Iannuzzi et al. (2015) found that individuals with higher subjective status were more likely to consider inequality as fair, less likely to consider redistribution as fair, and less likely to support redistribution. Brown-Ian- nuzzi et al. (2015) further explained that subjective status elicited patterns of policy preferences that were consistent with self-interest, and their policy preferences were justified by their beliefs about fairness. We also considered the effect of having chil- dren in the school system. For instance, people with children may give salience to the role of education in securing the life chances of their children. In contrast, peo- ple without children may give salience to the role of education in building a compe- tent workforce. The prominence given to the different roles of education may influ- ence people’s fairness perceptions of educational inequality. 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey Finally, we considered that a pervasive neoliberal orientation towards social policy may influence people’s fairness perceptions. Some advocates of neoliberal educational reforms argue that parents should be able to purchase education, like how they buy groceries at a supermarket, where competition brings better prod- ucts at cheaper prices (Abowitz & Stitzlein, 2018). People with such a perspective are likely to perceive that it is fair to pay higher prices for higher-quality educa- tion. Conversely, they are likely to consider it fair to provide lower-quality education to children whose parents cannot afford higher prices. Thus, the research questions in this article are: (1) Do people perceive educational inequality based on parental financial capacity as fair? (2) Are people’s perceptions of fairness predicted by self- interest and neoliberal orientations? Methods Participants The data presented in this article came from a larger study that investigated peo- ple’s views about educational equity. Participants (N = 1999) were adults between 18 and 89 years old (M = 50.1, SD = 17.3) from the state of New South Wales (NSW), where 32% of the Australian population resides (ABS, 2020). A quota sample was employed to ensure that the study sample resembled the NSW adult popula- tion regarding five key demographic variables: age, gender, education, income, and region. Qualtrics Panels assisted with recruitment and sampling. The sociodemo- graphic information of the study sample is shown in Table 1. The demographic composition of the study sample was similar to that of the NSW population reported in the 2016 Census (ABS, 2017, 2018). However, the study sample had higher proportions of people who were female (52% versus 51%), aged 65 or over (27% versus 20%), lived in rural or remote areas (12% versus 6%), had children (66% versus 62%), and had a university degree (35% versus 23%), and a smaller proportion of people who were not in the labour force (34% versus 41%). The 2016 Census provided data on all individuals (e.g., gender) or persons aged 15 or above (e.g., employment). This may explain some of these demographic differences. The percentages of the political party that the respondents voted for also mir- rored the percentages of the first preference for the party in the 2019 federal election (Australian Electoral Commission, 2019). For example, the Liberal–National Coali- tion received 43% of the population vote in NSW, which matches the voting pat- tern in the study sample (when the valid percentages are calculated). People’s politi- cal views could be related to their choice to participate in a survey on educational equity. So, this similarity provided more confidence in the quality of the sample. 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Table 1 Sociodemographic Variable n % information of the participants Gender  Male 948 47.4  Female 1042 52.1  Non-binary or missing 9 0.5 Age group  18–34 486 24.3  35–64 983 49.2  ≥ 65 530 26.5 Region  Metropolitan 1335 66.8  Regional 418 20.9  Rural or remote 246 12.3 Highest level of education  No high school 285 14.3  High school 370 18.5  VET, TAFE, or certificate 637 31.9  University degree 707 35.4 Employment status  Full time 766 38.3  Part time 383 19.2  Unemployed 138 6.9  Not in the labour force 683 34.2  Missing 29 1.5 Party voted for  Liberal–National Coalition 730 36.5  Labor 678 33.9  Greens 163 8.2  Other parties 135 6.8  Did not vote 148 7.4  Prefer not to answer 145 7.3 N = 1999. TAFE technical and further education, VET vocational education and training Data collection We developed the questionnaire from the relevant literature and a small-scale quali- tative survey. Some relevant questions were identified from the literature on public opinion about education and schools (e.g., Leahy & Selwyn, 2019), social attitudes (e.g., Curtice et al., 2019), social values (e.g., Sheppard et al., 2018), and distribu- tive justice (e.g., Marshall et al., 1999). Because those studies were not about edu- cational equity, we modified the relevant questions, e.g., converting an item stat- ing the lack of ability as the cause of poverty to an item stating the lack of ability 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey as the cause of underachievement. Also, a small-scale qualitative survey was con- ducted with the academic and professional staff (N = 89) at the authors’ university to gather their views about issues related to educational equity. Emergent themes and expressions used by the respondents were employed to develop the questionnaire. Subsequently, three academics in relevant fields examined the appropriateness of the wording and the content validity of the questionnaire items. The questionnaire included 60 items about the current state of educational equity in the Australian school system, beliefs and attitudes about educational equity, opinions about educational policy in Australia, preferences for practice and policy strategies to achieve educational equity, and demographic information. The online questionnaire was completed anonymously at the end of 2019. Ethical approval was obtained from the authors’ university. In conducting this study, we adhered to the ethical principles and standards stipulated in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007)—Updated 2018 (National Health & Medical Research Council, 2018). Measures The present study utilised survey items pertinent to answering our research ques- tions. Dependent variables (i.e., fairness perceptions) included fairness of inequal- ity in school resources, fairness of inequality in education quality, and fairness of the scenario. The question about the fairness of inequality in school resources asked whether it is fair that children of affluent families attend schools with more resources, with the definition of ‘resources’ left open for respondents’ interpretation. To assess fairness perceptions of inequality in education quality, respondents were asked whether children of high-income earners should receive a better-quality edu- cation because their parents pay more taxes. Although this question did not use the word ‘fairness’, it was deemed suitable for capturing people’s fairness perceptions as it asked about the propriety of such inequality. The third dependent variable was fairness of the scenario shown below: Think of a society where most of the children from high-income families go to schools with highly qualified and experienced teachers, and most of the chil- dren from low-income families go to schools with poorly qualified and less experienced teachers. As a result, children from high-income families perform better on nationwide tests than children from low-income families. How fair or unfair do you think this is? Student outcomes may be influenced by various school-level factors, such as student composition, school climate, school leadership, teaching, and resources such as school facilities and staffing support. In this scenario, we chose the differ - ence in teacher quality as an example of contrasting school conditions, which was likely to resonate with the public. We note, however, that the actual relationship between teacher ‘quality’ and student outcomes, especially when comparing dif- ferently advantaged educational settings, is by no means clear (Stacey, 2020). The respondents were asked whether this hypothetical situation was fair. Note that the 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… scenario clearly linked achievement gaps to the inequality of educational experi- ences based on family income whereas fairness of inequality in school resources and fairness of inequality in education quality did not. The response options for fairness of the scenario were very unfair, unfair, neither fair nor unfair, fair, and very fair. The response options for fairness of inequality in school resources and fairness of inequality in education quality were converted from the degree of agreement to the degree of fairness. Independent variables were indicators of self-interest (i.e., parental status, financial situation) and neoliberal orientations (i.e., student responsibility, collec- tive responsibility, school competition, and performance-based funding). Parental status included no children, younger children (≤ 18 years), and adult children only. Financial situation referred to the difficulty or ease of making ends meet. For regres- sion analysis, response options were collapsed into three categories: difficult (which included ‘difficult’ and ‘very difficult’), neither easy nor difficult, and easy (which included ‘easy’ and ‘very easy’). The question relating to student responsibility asked whether students are responsible for their own success or failure in school. To assess collective responsibility, respondents were asked whether society is respon- sible for closing achievement gaps. For school competition, respondents indicated their level of agreement with the statement that the quality of education improves when schools compete. The question relating to performance-based funding asked whether performance-based school funding motivates schools to work harder to improve student performance. Although Australia does not have a performance- based funding model, we included this item because it has been recommended by the proponents of neoliberal school systems, such as Hanushek and Lindseth (2009). Furthermore, it would enable us to capture public sentiment regarding competition- based policy technologies. Student responsibility, collective responsibility, school competition, and performance-based funding had a 5-point Likert scale format (from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). Data analysis Because the dependent variables were ordinal variables, an ordinal regression model was employed. As the proportional odds (PO) model is the most used ordinal regres- sion model (Fullerton & Wallace, 2007), the PO model was first fitted to predict fairness perceptions. However, the Brant test indicated that the parallel regressions assumption was violated on several independent variables, which would have led to an incorrect or misleading interpretation of the PO model results (Williams, 2016). Thus, the partial proportional odds (PPO) model was fitted and chosen as the final model. Multinomial and stereotype models were also compared to enhance confi- dence in the choice of model. The PPO model had a smaller Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) than the multinomial or stereotype models (see “Appendix”). For PPO regression analysis, the response options of fairness perception variables were reduced from five to four by collapsing the categories of ‘fair’ and ‘very fair’ because the scenario had a small number of responses in the category of ‘very fair’, 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey which would have resulted in small cell sizes. Given the sizable discrepancy between the study sample and the NSW population regarding employment status and educa- tion, employment status (not in the labour force = 1 and the rest = 0) and education (university degree = 1 and secondary school or lower = 0) were included as control variables. The sample size of PPO regression was decreased (N = 1968) due to miss- ing data. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 17 (StataCorp, 2021). The PPO model was fitted using gologit2 (Williams, 2016), with the autofit option selected to identify variables that needed the proportionality constraints relaxed. Results and discussion Fairness perceptions of educational inequality Regarding the question of whether it is fair that children of affluent families attend schools with more resources, there was almost an equal split between the respond- ents who perceived it as unfair or very unfair (37%) and those who perceived it as fair or very fair (34%) (see Fig.  1). Regarding inequality in education quality, the number of people who chose unfair or very unfair (n = 1178, 59%) was 3.6 times larger than the number of people who chose fair or very fair (n = 327, 16%). Con- cerning the scenario, 6.2 times more people chose unfair or very unfair (n = 1247, 62%), compared to people who chose fair or very fair (n = 198, 10%). Nevertheless, it was notable that over a third of respondents did not consider the scenario unfair or very unfair (28% chose ‘neither fair nor unfair’ and 10% chose ‘fair’ or ‘very fair’), 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% School resources Education quality Scenario Very unfair Unfair Neither fair nor unfair Fair Very fair Fig. 1 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality. N = 1999. Fairness of inequality in school resources asked whether it is fair that children of affluent families attend schools with more resources. Fairness of inequality in education quality asked whether children of high-income earners should receive a better-quality education because their parents pay more taxes. Fairness of the scenario asked: think of a society where most of the children from high-income families go to schools with highly qualified and experienced teachers, and most of the children from low-income families go to schools with poorly quali- fied and less experienced teachers. As a result, children from high-income families perform better on nationwide tests than children from low-income families. How fair or unfair do you think this is? 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… 1 3 Table 2 Descriptive statistics of dependent and independent variables Variable n % M SD Correlation 1 2 3 4 5 6 Parental status  No children 690 34.5  Children ≤ 18 years 685 34.3  Adult children only 624 31.2 Financial situation  Very difficult 168 8.4  Fairly difficult 405 20.3  Neither easy nor difficult 693 34.7  Fairly easy 468 23.4  Very easy 260 13.0  Prefer not to answer 5 0.3 1. Student responsibility 3.16 1.03 – 2. Collective responsibility 4.00 0.89 – 0.10*** – 3. School competition 3.21 1.01 0.22*** – 0.03 – 4. Performance-based school funding 3.29 1.00 0.23*** 0.04 0.41*** – 5. Fairness of inequality in school resources 2.94 1.22 0.26*** – 0.16*** 0.24*** 0.24*** – 6. Fairness of inequality in education quality 2.37 1.11 0.24*** – 0.29*** 0.28*** 0.23*** 0.40*** – 7. Fairness of the scenario 2.14 1.06 0.23*** – 0.34*** 0.22*** 0.19*** 0.37*** 0.46*** N = 1999. M mean, SD standard deviation. The table presents Spearman’s rank-order correlations. ***p < .001 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey despite the obvious unequal educational opportunity presented in the scenario and the prevailing discourse of equal educational opportunity in Australia and globally. As shown in Table 2, the three dependent variables on fairness perceptions of educa- tional inequality were moderately correlated. In addressing the first research question (do people perceive educational inequal- ity based on parental financial capacity as fair?), these results, therefore, confirm a diversity of views. This diversity of fairness perceptions could originate from the use of different criteria. Fairness of distribution primarily depends on relevant cri- teria and relevant side constraints that are applied (Hooker, 2005). In judging the fairness of educational inequality, some respondents might have used the crite- rion of desert, focusing on parents having an output (e.g., the quality of education offered to their children) that accords with their input (e.g., the amount of money spent). This may be particularly the case with the question about resourcing, where respondents might have felt that tangible school resources, such as access to swim- ming pools, are reasonable facilities to be ‘purchased’ via school fees and inequality in such resources is not ‘unfair’ as those facilities, while providing a benefit to stu- dents, may not directly impact educational outcomes. Other respondents, however, might have thought all children have equal rights to learn and thus, it was unfair to have unequal educational experiences. In particular, the explicit connection between unequal educational experiences and students’ achievement gaps made in the sce- nario might have prompted more respondents to utilise the criterion of equality (i.e., equal opportunity in education). The respondents who chose ‘neither fair nor unfair’ might have felt ambivalent about the fairness of educational inequality because they considered both criteria to be relevant. Predicting fairness perceptions of educational inequality PPO regression results confirmed that self-interest and neoliberal orientations pre- dicted fairness perceptions of educational inequality. Figure 2 displays a summary of these results. We next examine these findings in more detail, beginning with parental status and then financial situation, as measures of self-interest; before exploring the findings concerning neoliberal orientations. Details of these findings are presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Parental status First, regarding self-interest, it is evident that the effect of parental status on fairness perceptions differed by the inequality situation. There was no effect of parental sta- tus on the fairness of inequality in school resources. The respondents with adult chil- dren were less likely to endorse the fairness of inequality in education quality and less likely to say the scenario was fair or very fair, compared to respondents without children. The effects of having younger children (≤ 18 years) on fairness perceptions differed by the inequality condition examined. Compared to the respondents with- out children, the respondents with younger children were more likely to perceive inequality in education quality as very unfair and at the same time were more likely to endorse the fairness of the scenario. 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… 1 3 Inequality in school resources Inequality in education quality Scenario 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F Younger children Adult children Younger children Adult children Younger children Adult children Financially neutral Financially Easy Financially neutral Financially Easy Financially neutral Financially Easy 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F Student responsibility Collective responsibility Student responsibility Collective responsibility Student responsibility Collective responsibility School competition Performance-based funding School competition Performance-based funding School competition Performance-based funding Fig. 2 Odds ratios from partial proportional ordinal regression predicting fairness perceptions of educational inequality. N = 1968. VU very unfair, U unfair, N neither fair nor unfair, F fair or very fair. Reference groups for categorical variables are ‘no children’ and ‘financially difficult’. Only statistically significantly different odd ratios are presented J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey Table 3 Partial proportional ordinal regression predicting fairness perceptions of inequality in school resources Variable VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI University degree 1.00 [0.84, 1.19] Not in the labour force 0.75** [0.62, 0.91] Parental status (no children)  Children ≤ 18 years 1.14 [0.93, 1.40]  Adult children only 0.89 [0.72, 1.11] Financial situation (difficult)  Neither difficult nor easy 1.48* [1.10, 2.01] 1.17 [0.93, 1.48] 0.99 [0.78, 1.26]  Easy 1.29* [1.05, 1.60] Student responsibility 1.37*** [1.25, 1.49] Collective responsibility 0.36*** [0.29, 0.43] 0.54*** [0.48, 0.62] 0.95 [0.84, 1.06] School competition 1.34*** [1.22, 1.47] Performance-based school 1.47*** [1.29, 1.68] 1.29*** [1.15, 1.44] 1.46*** [1.29, 1.64] funding Intercept 19.18*** [6.84, 53.75] 1.28 [0.64, 2.55] 0.03*** [0.01, 0.05] n = 1968, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, VU very unfair, U unfair, N neither fair nor unfair, F fair or very fair. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. Reference groups are in parentheses. Only one set of coefficients is presented for variables that meet the proportionality assumption, whereas three coefficients are displayed for variables that did not meet the assumption Table 4 Partial proportional ordinal regression predicting fairness perceptions of inequality in education quality Variable VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI University degree 1.00 [0.83, 1.19] Not in the labour force 0.73*** [0.60, 0.88] Parental status (no children)  Children ≤ 18 years 0.68** [0.52, 0.89] 0.80 [0.63, 1.01] 1.25 [0.94, 1.67]  Adult children only 0.66** [0.49, 0.88] 0.41*** [0.32, 0.54] 0.42*** [0.29, 0.61] Financial situation (difficult)  Neither difficult nor easy 1.63*** [1.24, 2.13] 1.08 [0.84, 1.38] 0.72 [0.51, 1.01]  Easy 1.62*** [1.24, 2.13] 1.00 [0.78, 1.28] 1.06 [0.79, 1.44] Student responsibility 1.11 [0.99, 1.23] 1.34*** [1.20, 1.49] 1.48*** [1.29, 1.70] Collective responsibility 0.44*** [0.38, 0.52] 0.55*** [0.49, 0.62] 0.76** [0.65, 0.89] School competition 1.45*** [1.32, 1.59] Performance-based school 1.26*** [1.12, 1.41] 1.49*** [1.32, 1.68] 1.86*** [1.56, 2.23] funding Intercept 10.48*** [4.45, 24.68] 0.35** [0.18, 0.71] 0.01*** [0.00, 0.02] n = 1968, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, VU very unfair, U unfair, N neither fair nor unfair, F fair or very fair. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. Reference groups are in parentheses. Only one set of coefficients is presented for variables that meet the proportionality assumption, whereas three coefficients are displayed for variables that did not meet the assumption 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Table 5 Partial proportional ordinal regression predicting fairness perceptions of the scenario Variable VU vs. U, N, F VU, U vs. N, F VU, U, N vs. F OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI University degree 1.10 [0.92, 1.32] Not in the labour force 0.85 [0.70, 1.04] Parental status (no children)  Children ≤ 18 years 1.25* [1.02, 1.53]  Adult children only 1.01 [0.79, 1.30] 0.97 [0.75, 1.25] 0.50** [0.33, 0.76] Financial situation (difficult)  Neither difficult nor easy 1.56*** [1.23, 1.99] 1.41** [1.10, 1.80] 0.70 [0.48, 1.04]  Easy 1.74*** [1.40, 2.16] Student responsibility 1.21*** [1.09, 1.34] 1.39*** [1.25, 1.55] 1.45*** [1.23, 1.71] Collective responsibility 0.42*** [0.37, 0.48] 0.45*** [0.40, 0.51] 0.64*** [0.54, 0.76] School competition 1.31*** [1.19, 1.44] Performance-based school fund- 1.30*** [1.16, 1.45] 1.21** [1.07, 1.37] 1.79*** [1.47, 2.18] ing Intercept 4.15*** [1.98, 8.67] 0.71 [0.36, 1.41] 0.01*** [0.00, 0.02] N = 1968, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, VU very unfair, U unfair, N neither fair nor unfair, F fair or very fair. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. Reference groups are in parentheses. Only one set of coefficients is presented for variables that meet the proportionality assumption, whereas three coefficients are displayed for variables that did not meet the assumption In interpreting these results, it is possible that parents of current or future school-going children might have paid more attention to the social mobility goal of education. Under this goal, education becomes a private good designed to prepare individuals for successful competition for more desirable social posi- tions (Labaree, 1997). This reflects the research literature on school choice and parental engagement in schooling, where sending children to a school with high performance or a good reputation is considered a marker of good parenting (Proc- tor & Aitchison, 2015). It is perhaps unsurprising that parents, if understood as self-interested education consumers, may desire a stratified education system like the scenario. Conversely, from the perspectives of citizens and taxpayers, schools should provide good-quality education to all children to produce competent citi- zens and skilled workers (Labaree, 1997). The respondents without children or with adult children might have prioritised these alternative societal goals and per- ceived the scenario as more unfair. However, parental status was not a significant predictor of fairness perceptions of ine- quality in school resources and had somewhat opposite effects on fairness perceptions of inequality in education quality. Unlike the scenario, these two inequality conditions did not clearly link achievement gaps to unequal educational experiences. Moreover, inequality in education quality was not clearly specified as inequality at the school level. It might be that some respondents with current or future school-going children inter- preted it as receiving education with differing qualities within the same school and thus, perceived it as very unfair. Given the intricacies, the effects of parental status on fairness perceptions need further investigation. 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey Financial situation The regression results also revealed that the respondents with financial comfort (another element of self-interest) tended to perceive education inequality based on parental financial capacity as fair. There were significant effects of financial situation on all fairness perception variables, and overall, financially comfortable respondents were more likely to endorse the fairness of educational inequality across all fairness perception variables than those with financial difficulty. This finding broadly sup- ports the idea that people’s fairness perceptions of inequality depend on their social positions (Brown-Iannuzzi et  al., 2015; Hvidberg et  al., 2020), albeit focusing on different inequalities (i.e., educational versus economic). A possible explanation is that people give salience to different criteria in judging fairness depending on their circumstances (Elenbaas, 2019). Another potential explanation is that compared to people with lower socioeconomic status, people with higher socioeconomic status have a stronger focus on the self and reduced concerns for others (Manstead, 2018). In judging the fairness of educational inequality, financially comfortable respond- ents might have prioritised the correspondence between the costs and benefits, which serves their own interest—they have the greater purchasing power to win the competition in the ‘education market’. Conversely, respondents with financial diffi- culty might have given salience to equal educational opportunities. Neoliberal orientations Finally, neoliberal orientations significantly predicted fairness perceptions of educa- tional inequality. Across all fairness perception variables, the more people favoured individual students’ responsibility, school competition, and performance-based school funding—neoliberal policy instruments, the more they endorsed the fairness of educa- tional inequality. On the contrary, the more people agreed with the collective respon- sibility to close achievement gaps, the less they endorsed the fairness of educational inequality. With the rise of neoliberalism, education systems worldwide have imple- mented reforms toward marketisation and privatisation. In this settlement, education has become commodified, and parents have become consumers of education for their children (Ball, 2004). For people who endorse such directions, it would be considered fair to receive a better educational ‘service’ when paying more. Thus, in the ‘education market’, unequal educational experiences based on parental financial capacity are the consequences of fair transactions and thus, equitable. The consistent effects of neolib- eral orientations on all fairness perception variables found in the present study seem to indicate the considerable influence of neoliberalism on the public’s views of education. To further illustrate the effects of self-interest and neoliberal orientations on the fairness of educational inequality, we also examined the predicted probabilities. Fig- ure  3 displays the average adjusted prediction of fairness of the scenario by self- interest and neoliberal orientations (given the consistent effects of neoliberal orien- tations, figures for two other inequality conditions are almost identical). According to the PPO regression predicting the scenario, all things being equal, the probabil- ity of choosing very unfair was 7% among respondents with self-interest and neo- liberal orientations, whereas the probability was 78% among respondents with no 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Very unfair Unfair NeutralFair or Very fair Interest and neoliberal No-interest and non-neoliberal Fig. 3 Average adjusted prediction of fairness perceptions of the scenario by self-interest and neoliberal orientations. Interest refers to ‘younger children’ and ‘financially comfortable’. No-interest refers to ‘no children’ and ‘financial difficulty’. Neoliberal refers to high student responsibility, low collective respon- sibility, high school competition, and high performance-based school funding. Non-neoliberal refers to low student responsibility, high collective responsibility, low school competition, and low performance- based school funding. Low = mean ‒ 1 standard deviation; high = mean + 1 standard deviation self-interest and non-neoliberal orientations. Conversely, holding other variables constant, the probability of choosing fair or very fair was 40% among the respond- ents with self-interest and neoliberal orientations but was 1% among respondents with no self-interest and non-neoliberal orientations. Implications Although fairness perceptions of educational inequality were diverse, most respondents perceived the scenario as unfair or very unfair. This contrasts with the current reality of the Australian school system, which features considerable inequality in access to educational provision through the public subsidisation of fee-charging private schools. Despite the supposed adoption of needs-based school funding under the Gonski model, some public schools still struggle to meet the stated level of need (Cobbold, 2019), while some private schools flaunt extravagant facilities (Baker, 2022). Yet, Austral- ia’s current market-based, choice-oriented school system is rarely questioned (Stacey, 2022). This may be due to a normalisation of the idea of school choice (Stacey, 2022) and, indeed, a ‘discourse of choice’ more broadly (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014). The idea of choice can be difficult to argue with and may appear to many as an inherent good in which parents have enhanced autonomy and involvement in their children’s education. While in practice, such choice is largely illusory—the basis on which to ‘choose’ is a ‘myth of an equal playing field’ (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014, p. 1580), people may understand choice of school as simply a parental right rather than a mechanism of social reproduction. As such, the results of this study are encourag- ing. While people’s opinions about the fairness of inequality in school resources were evenly divided, most respondents perceived inequality in education quality and teacher quality as unfair, particularly when achievement gaps were clearly linked to unequal 1 3 Probability J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey educational experiences. The Australian public might not fully comprehend or appre- ciate a clear pattern of segregation along socioeconomic lines and the subsequent achievement gaps brought by school choice, partly due to the success of the discourse of school choice in obscuring its role in social reproduction. This suggests that if the inequitable effects of school choice in the Australian school system were more widely known and understood, then support for system change may be easier to garner. In addition, the findings of this study imply that in an era largely dominated by neoliberalism, in which public goods and services are reconceptualised as pri- vate commodities, it is crucial to reinforce the idea of education as a public good. Whether education is a public good or commodity has broad implications for how education is organised, administered, and funded (Grace, 1989). If education is solely a private commodity to be traded, there are limited rationales for state inter- ventions and public funding (Grace, 1989), and education is likely to function as a mechanism that keeps marginalised families in an intergenerational cycle of dis- advantage. According to Kaul and Mendoza (2003), repeated effort is required to firmly establish a good as private or public. Therefore, under the onslaught of neo- liberalism, the idea of education as a public good would need to be actively advo- cated and defended. Limitations and future directions Limitations of this study relate to sampling technique, social desirability bias, meas- ures, and geographical location. First, we used a quota sampling technique to ensure that the study sample adequately reflected the NSW population. Future studies with representative samples would bring a more robust understanding of the public’s fair- ness perceptions about educational inequality. Second, social desirability bias cannot be excluded. For example, it is possible that some respondents felt uncomfortable saying the scenario was fair even when they thought so. Future studies could explic- itly measure social desirability bias or employ strategies to reduce the risk (e.g., by asking what their neighbours might think). Third, measures used in this study are limited and require further development. Due to the scarcity of literature on public opinion about educational equity, we developed our survey questions by modifying questions from relevant literature and utilising the findings of a qualitative survey. Future studies are needed to further develop and validate survey questions designed to capture public opinion about the fairness of educational inequality. Relatedly, although the present study included variables representing important characteristics of neoliberal educational policies, future studies could include other measures of neoliberal orientations. For example, studies may explicitly ask whether education is a commodity, what the goal of education is, or whether education should be left to the market. Finally, we note that the present study is based on a survey of adults in the most populous state in Australia. As fairness perceptions differ by culture (Schäfer et  al., 2015), international comparison studies could gain a more sophis- ticated understanding of fairness perceptions of educational inequality across cul- tures. Furthermore, future studies comparing fairness perceptions in different policy contexts could provide even more policy-relevant findings. 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Conclusion The results of this study indicate that despite the normalisation of the market-based, choice-oriented school system in Australia and its inequitable effects (Thomson, 2021), many Australians consider educational inequality based on parental financial capacity unfair, particularly when clear links between unequal educational experi- ences and achievement gaps are presented. However, people’s fairness perceptions depended on self-interest and neoliberal orientations. Self-interest and neoliberal orientations appeared to be linked to a consumer approach to education that con- siders education a private commodity. From the consumer perspective, educational inequality is not a problem but an outcome of fair trade. For education to function as a social equaliser, a view of education as a public good would need to be firmly established and actively promoted. The unfairness of educational inequality is often used as a rationale for develop- ing policy measures to reduce educational inequity. However, there has been lim- ited knowledge about the public’s perceptions of the fairness of educational inequal- ity. Although many factors influence policy decisions, public support is needed for politically feasible policymaking. People’s fairness perceptions of inequality are associated with their preferences for policy measures designed to reduce inequality. Therefore, it is important to understand further the fairness perceptions of educa- tional inequality to generate public support for equity-oriented educational policy. The present study offers valuable insights into people’s perceptions of the fairness of socioeconomic educational inequality and suggests that unmasking the conse- quences of inequitable education systems and promoting education as a public good may inspire considerable public support for change to education systems. Appendix See Table 6. Table 6 Model comparisons Fairness perception variables Partial proportional Multinomial Stereotype Inequality in school resources  Log-likelihood – 2387.4 – 2395.9 – 2463.6  AIC 4812.7 4857.9 4957.1  BIC 4918.9 5042.2 5040.9 Inequality in education quality  Log-likelihood – 2341.8 – 2343.2 – 2424.4  AIC 4737.6 4752.5 4878.8  BIC 4888.4 4936.8 4962.5 Scenario  Log-likelihood – 2284.7 – 2287.2 – 2336.0  AIC 4615.3 4640.3 4702.0  BIC 4743.8 4824.6 4785.8 AIC Akaike’s information criterion, BIC Bayesian information criterion 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey Acknowledgements The authors thank the respondents for their generosity in sharing their views; the anonymous reviewers and Professor Thomas M. Besch for helpful comments; Professor Jihyun Lee, Ms Alyssa Preval, and Dr Prasheela Karan for their assistance in this project; and Professor Pasi Sahlberg, Dr Sally Baker, Dr Courtenay Atwell, and other members of the Gonski Institute for Education for their feedback on the survey questionnaire. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. Funding for this project was provided by the Gonski Institute for Education at UNSW Sydney. Conflict of interests The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. Ethical approval Ethical approval was granted through the University of New South Wales: HC190460. In conducting this study, the authors adhered to the ethical principles and standards stipulated in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) - Updated 2018 (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2018). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Abowitz, K. K., & Stitzlein, S. M. (2018). Public schools, public goods, and public work. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(3), 33–37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00317 21718 808262 Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G.-M. (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American Economic Review, 95(4), 960–980. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ 00028 28054 825655 Amable, B. (2010). Morals and politics in the ideology of neo-liberalism. Socio-Economic Review, 9(1), 3–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ser/ mwq015 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). 2016 Census QuickStats. https:// quick stats. censu sdata. abs. gov. au/ census_ servi ces/ getpr oduct/ census/ 2016/ quick stat/1 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). 3218.0: Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2016–2017. https:// www. abs. gov. au/ AUSST ATS/ abs@. nsf/ Detai lsPage/ 3218. 02016- 17? OpenD ocume nt Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). National, State and Territory Population. https:// www. abs. gov. au/ stati stics/ people/ popul ation/ natio nal- state- and- terri tory- popul ation/ dec- 2019 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Schools, Australia 2020. https:// www. abs. gov. au/ stati stics/ people/ educa tion/ schoo ls/ latest- relea se Australian Electoral Commission. (2019). First Preferences by Party: NSW. https:// resul ts. aec. gov. au/ 24310/ Websi te/ House State First Prefs ByPar ty- 24310- NSW. htm Baker, J. (2022). Private school funding exposes the nation’s lack of heart. The Sydney Morning Herald. https:// www. smh. com. au/ natio nal/ priva te- school- fundi ng- expos es- the- nation- s- lack- of- heart- 20220 629- p5axoo. html Ball, S. (2004). Education for sale! The commodification of everything? King’s Annual Education Lecture 2004. University of London. Beddoes, K., & Pawley, A. L. (2014). “Different people have different priorities”: Work-family bal- ance, gender, and the discourse of choice. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1573–1585. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2013. 801432 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Lundberg, K. B., Kay, A. C., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26(1), 15–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09567 97614 Campbell, C., & Proctor, H. (2014). A history of Australian schooling. Allen & Unwin. Campbell, C., Proctor, H., & Sherington, G. (2009). School choice: How parents negotiate the new school market in Australia. Allen & Unwin. Cobbold, T. (2019). The state of school funding in Australia 2017. https:// saveo ursch ools. com. au/ fundi ng/ the- facts- about- school- fundi ng- in- austr alia/ Curtice, J., Clery, E., Perry, J. M. P. & Rahim, N. (2019). British Social Attitudes: The 36th report. https:// www. bsa. natcen. ac. uk/ media/ 39363/ bsa_ 36. pdf Elenbaas, L. (2019). Perceived access to resources and young children’s fairness judgments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 188, 104667. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jecp. 2019. 104667 Forsey, M., Proctor, H., & Stacey, M. (2017). A most poisonous debate: Legitimizing support for Aus- tralian private schools. In T. Koinzer, R. Nikolai & F. Waldow (Eds.), Private schools and school choice in compulsory education: Global change and national challenge. Springer. Fullerton, A. S., & Wallace, M. (2007). Traversing the flexible turn: US workers’ perceptions of job secu- rity, 1977–2002. Social Science Research, 36(1), 201–221. García-Sánchez, E., Osborne, D., Willis, G. B., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2020). Attitudes towards redis- tribution and the interplay between perceptions and beliefs about inequality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 111–136. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjso. 12326 Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011). Review of fund- ing for schooling: Final report. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. https:// docs. educa tion. gov. au/ system/ files/ doc/ other/ review- of- fundi ng- for- schoo ling- final- report- dec- 2011. pdf Grace, G. (1989). Education: Commodity or public good? British Journal of Educational Studies, 37(3), 207–221. Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Performance-based funding. Defining Ideas, 101‒105. https:// www. hoover. org/ resea rch/ perfo rmance- based- fundi ng Hooker, B. (2005). Fairness. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 8(4), 329–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10677- 005- 8836-2 Hvidberg, K. B., Kreiner, C., & Stantcheva, S. (2020). Social position and fairness views. National Bureau of Economic Research. https:// www. nber. org/ papers/ w28099 Kaul, I., & Mendoza, R. U. (2003). Advancing the concept of public goods. In I. Kaul (Ed.), Providing global public goods: Managing globalization (pp. 78–111). Oxford University Press. Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. Amer- ican Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00028 31203 40010 39 Leahy, D., & Selwyn, N. (2019). Public opinions on Australian schools & schooling. https:// resea rchmgt. monash. edu/ ws/ porta lfiles/ portal/ 26222 9360/ 26222 9303_ oa. pdf Manstead, A. S. R. (2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 267–291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjso. 12251 Marshall, G., Swift, A., Routh, D., & Burgoyne, C. (1999). What is and what ought to be popular beliefs about distributive justice in thirteen countries. European Sociological Review, 15(4), 349–367. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oxfor djour nals. esr. a0182 70 Mijs, J. J. B. (2019). The paradox of inequality: Income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. Socio-Economic Review, 19(1), 7–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ser/ mwy051 Mudge, S. L. (2008). What is neo-liberalism? Socio-Economic Review, 6(4), 703–731. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ser/ mwn016 National Health and Medical Research Council. (2018). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007): Updated 2018. National Health and Medical Research Council. https:// www . nhmr c. gov . au/ about- us/ publi catio ns/ natio nal- s t ate ment- e t hic al- condu ct- human- r esea r ch- 2007- updat ed- 2018 OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. OECD Publishing. https:// www. oecd- ilibr ary. org/ educa tion/ equity- in- educa tion_ 97892 64073 234- en 1 3 J.-S. Lee, M. Stacey OECD. (2019). Balancing school choice and equity: An international perspective based on PISA. OECD Publishing. https:// www. oecd. org/ publi catio ns/ balan cing- school- choice- and- equity- 2592c 974- en. htm Olsen, J. A. (2011). Concepts of equity and fairness in health and health care. In S. Glied & P. C. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of health economics. Oxford University Press. Parker, P., Guo, J., & Sanders, T. (2019). Socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes in Australia. In L. Volante, S. V. Schnepf, J. Jerrim, & D. A. Klinger (Eds.), Socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes: Cross-national trends, policies, and practices (pp. 189–204). Springer. Proctor, H., & Aitchison, C. (2015). Markets in education: “School choice” and family capital. In G. Meagher & S. Goodwin (Eds.), Markets, rights and power in Australian social policy (pp. 323– 341). Sydney University Press. Rowe, E. E., & Lubienski, C. (2017). Shopping for schools or shopping for peers: Public schools and catchment area segregation. Journal of Education Policy, 32(3), 340–356. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02680 939. 2016. 12633 63 Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global education reform movement and its impact on schooling. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 128–144). Wiley. Schäfer, M., Haun, D. B. M., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Fair is not fair everywhere. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1252–1260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09567 97615 586188 Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. https:// www. oecd. org/ pisa/ PISA% 202018% 20Ins ights% 20and% 20Int erpre tatio ns% 20FIN AL% 20PDF. pdf Sciffer, M. G., Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2022). Does school socioeconomic composition matter more in some countries than others, and if so, why? Comparative Education, 58(1), 37–51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03050 068. 2021. 20130 45 Sheppard, J., McAllister, I., & Makkai, T. (2018). Australian values study. https:// www. srcen tre. com. au/ ausva lues Stacey, M. (2020). The business of teaching: Becoming a teacher in a market of schools. Palgrave Macmillan. Stacey, M. (2022). Pre-service teachers’ views of schools as workplaces in a system of social, cultural and religious division: To be “selfish” or to be a “hero”? Educational Review. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00131 911. 2022. 20273 47 Stacey, M., & Mockler, N. (2023). Purposes of education: Freedom of the individual or “collective good”? In A. Wilkins (Ed.), Policy foundations of education (pp. 33–58). Bloomsbury. StataCorp. (2021). Stata statistical software: Release 17. StataCorp LLC. Thomson, S. (2021). Australia: PISA Australia: Excellence and equity? In N. Crato (Ed.), Improving a country’s education (pp. 25–47). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 59031-4_2 UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). Handbook on measuring equity in education. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. UNICEF Office of Research. (2018). An unfair start: Inequality in children’s education in rich countries, Innocenti Report Card 15. UNICEF Office of Research. Valant, J., & Newark, D. A. (2016). The politics of achievement gaps: U.S. Public opinion on race-based and wealth-based differences in test scores. Educational Researcher, 45(6), 331–346. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00131 89x16 658447 Williams, R. (2016). Understanding and interpreting generalized ordered logit models. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(1), 7–20. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Jung‑Sook Lee is an Associate Professor in the UNSW School of Social Sciences. She received her Ph.D. and M.S.W. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. Her research focuses on educa- tional and social policy provisions to break the cycle of intergenerational disadvantages. She has authored papers on the wellbeing of vulnerable children and families, educational equity, home-school partner- ships, and school social work. 1 3 Fairness perceptions of educational inequality: the effects… Meghan Stacey is a Senior Lecturer in the UNSW School of Education, researching in the fields of the Sociology of Education and Education Policy. Taking a particular interest in teachers, her research con- siders how teachers’ work is framed by policy, as well as the effects of such policy for those who work with, within and against it. Meghan completed her Ph.D. with the University of Sydney in 2018. Before this, she worked for a number of years as an English and Drama teacher in public secondary schools in NSW, in particular in the Riverina region. 1 3

Journal

The Australian Educational ResearcherSpringer Journals

Published: May 25, 2023

Keywords: Fairness perceptions; Educational equity; Public opinion; Neoliberalism; Socioeconomic status

There are no references for this article.