Too often a child’s life chances are shaped by where they went to school and where

they’re growing up, and we shouldn’t accept that’ [GREENING 2017]. Critically discuss this

statement in relation to Low SES in Greater Western Sydney to show that social exclusion

and inequality in schooling, are linked to place.

Social class “categorises” and “organises” the world in extremely influential ways. Class is

connected to one’s way of living and can be seen to solely reflect income, personal success,

schooling, education, housing and nature of living (Weis & Dolby, 2012). Variances in social

class further create diverse differences for youth in a given area based upon their

socioeconomic (SES) status. Education and opportunity becomes important in regard to

affecting young peoples’ life chances and inequality (Wrench, Hammond, McCallum, &

Price, 2013). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2009), individuals living

in disadvantaged areas are more susceptible to experience social exclusion such as limited

access to education resources further, producing inequalities in broader society. Low socio-

economic status within Greater Western Sydney can be seen to limit and impact students’

opportunities to succeed due to binary power imbalances, dominant discourses and

surrounding stereotypes attached to low SES area’s and individuals. Further, demonstrating

disadvantage as a result of global societal stigma. Based upon the above notions this essay

will examine the place-based approach theory, Bourdieu’s theory of capital, imbalance of

power, equity and access in relation to Australian and global societal discourses, Low SES

and the effect on student outcomes and finally the impact of schooling policies due to low

SES.

According to Moore & Fry (2011) active communities are evidently using a place-based

approach to address collective problems within their given area. The aim of the approach is
to reduce inequalities, respond to complex needs and encourage social inclusion. A place

based approach looks at recognising the issues within the social and physical environment

of a location and further working with the community at a local level to resolve the

problem. Place based approaches are carried out within a community due to the concern

“that locational disadvantages exist and that they lead to poorer outcomes for children”

(Moore & Fry, 2011, pp. 4). Additionally, the community takes extensive action when

traditional approaches fail to deliver favourable outcomes.

In Greater Western Sydney Place based approaches have been implemented due to the

educational gap apparent within low SES communities. A placed based approach is

demonstrated in literature by Ferfolja’s (2008) where the Department of Education and

Training (DET) and the University of Western Sydney (UWS) linked together in collaboration,

creating a program called “Classmates”. The “Classmates” initiative was put forward in aim

to expose pre-service teachers to the hardships they may encounter in a society where

sociocultural inequality is growing and is currently a major contributing factor towards social

exclusion. The “students in these schools often possess backgrounds impacted by poverty,

unemployment, limited education, housing instability, homelessness and/or recent

migration” (Ferfolja, 2008, pp. 69). The place based approach allowed the pre-service

teachers to gain knowledge in order to go above and beyond their average class room role

through pedagogical change to improve student engagement and outcomes. The aim was

for the individuals to re-evaluate the “one size fits all approach” when dealing with complex

and challenging socio-economically disadvantaged environments in these areas of Western

Sydney. The pre-services teachers became familiar with encountering welfare issues and

gained extensive socio-cultural knowledge to address and attend to the diverse needs of
each individual student, whatever those specific needs may be. Further, acknowledging

capital imbalances, ways of building upon teacher capital, elimination of stigmatised

stereotypes, emphasis on student-teacher rapport and integrating background knowledge

to achieve academic outcomes (Ferfolja, 2008). The pre-service teacher took away

important knowledge by implementing essential strategies solely acquired from having the

experiencing first hand.

Students preparing their future educational trajectories are confronted with many

uncertainties in relation to educational opportunities based upon one’s attainment of socio

economic resources (Tikkanen, 2016). According to Moustakim (2015), socio economic status

and class have substantial correlation regarding social and educational incomes. Bourdieu’s

theory of capital highlights disparities between class, wealth, privilege, knowledge, networks

and education. Students from Low SES backgrounds, minority groups and working-class

families experience educational inequalities due to their amount of capital. Capital is grouped

into three defined area’s such as social, economic and cultural (Moustakim, 2015). In society

it is assumed that more capital one holds the greater opportunities one possesses. Low SES

area’s hold less economic capital due to inability to acquire material goods and academic

resources beneficial within the education setting. These properties hold power and privilege

to attain academic knowledge for example text books, uniforms, electronic devices such as

laptops, computers, tutoring support and learning materials (Marchant & Finch, 2016).

Similarly, Tucker-Drob, Briley, & Harden (2013) enforce the idea that in low SES contexts

children are less likely to engage in motivating experiences within their schooling and

household environment. Literature states that children from disadvantaged backgrounds

typically have limited access to high quality learning materials and educational books,

experience smaller academic demand and a restricted level of valuable social interactions

between peers and adults (Tucker-Drob, Briley, & Harden, 2013). Furthermore, Jury Et al.

(2017) suggest that Bourdieu argues within society low SES students are seen as

disadvantaged within an educational setting having a lower chance of success due to their

incapability of attaining economic capital and financial resources.

Huppatz (2015) suggests that education is a key predictor of status concurring with

Bourdieu, who establishes class, culture and education to power. Bourdieu believes that

children from high SES benefit in success due to attained knowledge and respected cultural

capital for example learned skills and core values. Bourdieu argues that leading status

resonates within middle class and upper class, who are privileged due to their social

networking, family education and institutional opportunities. Contrastingly, Low SES

students are then disadvantaged as a result of cultural capital by not possessing

“knowledge, behaviours and values” that are essential within any given educational system

(Jury et., al 2017 pp. 29 ). Dietrichson, Bog, Filges, & Klint Jorgensen (2017) concur,

additionally stating that children from Low SES neighbourhoods are restricted to accessing

peer support and sufficient role models. As a result, students fail to obtain necessary skills

to thrive academically such as being able to adapt and adhere to the standard of conduct in

schools. Huppaz (2015) agreeing that children who inherit middle to upper class status,

experience greater luxury in attaining educational accomplishments via family experience

and guided support.

Furthermore, Ho’s (2011) literature establishes that Western Sydney has the leading profile

with the one of lowest socioeconomic status disadvantaged area in Sydney. Moreover,
stating that on average the Annual school fees in Australia was more than $20,000 in

selected schools. This figure is understood as almost 40 per cent of an individual’s annual

salary with the government contributing one third more funding to private schooling in

contrast to the public sector. With Western Sydney already struggling due to poor housing

quality and unaffordable living expenses such as rent, geographical schooling variations and

limited educational opportunities become significantly apparent (Gleeson & Randolph,

2002).

Global and Australian dominant discourses of power are apparent in regard to hegemony

within an Australian and global context. Global discourses such as power imbalances are most

common in relation to the notion that white, middle class individuals hold the most power in

societal and educational settings based upon capital, opportunity and success. A range of

stereotypes and stigma’s are presented and reflected onto those who come from Low SES

backgrounds. Kunstman, Plant & Deska (2016) acknowledge the prejudice and bias viewpoints

that society has placed upon grouping individuals based upon colour and socio-economic

status. Upper class white individuals are represented as superior, successful and

institutionalised, contrastingly disparate compared to Low SES groups negatively

marginalised as “poor”, “uneducated”, “dirty” and “lazy”, with Low SES individuals stating

they felt socially excluded and othered (pp.231). Thus, these stereotypes and stigmatised

associations reflect Greater Western Sydney substantially with individuals feeling as if their

“postcode has created a class divide… defining their potential” and further negatively

affiliated based upon place (Parsons, 2016). Stereotypes are also compared to other area’s of

place within Sydney with Parsons’ (2016) article also describing stigma’s surrounding those

that are from, and/or living, and/or situated in the Western Sydney region as “lesser” than
those from “Eastern and Northern suburbs”. Other associated connotations have been linked

to social prejudices such as being categorised as “ghetto”, “crime” infused and having a “lack

of cultural sophistication”. Lay & Arvanitakis (2017) concur in their report affirming that

Western Sydney is portrayed and stereotyped as a “cultural wasteland” (pp. 4). These

conventionalised labels contribute to student’s outcomes and life chances in relation to social

exclusion, future aspirations and goals, social alienation and self-esteem issues, just to name

a few.

Furthermore, another common stereotype portrayed is the impression that students from

low SES backgrounds cannot perform well academically. This associated stigma stems from

teacher’s perspectives working within Low SES areas in addition to broader society. Lampert,

Burnett & Morse (2015) identify problematic concerns associated with the dominant ways of

thinking in society as being considered the “normal” in additional to having little existing

knowledge into their students’ upbringings, backgrounds and communities. Additionally,

because many teachers predominately come from white middle class socioeconomic

backgrounds, it is common for this privilege to lead to binary assumption when working in

low SES and disadvantaged schools. The overarching barrier that is likely experienced is that

the students and/or the teachers are minoritised as ‘othered’ based upon capitalised

disparities. Lampert, Burnett & Morse (2015) put forward ways to bridge this gap through

programs such as the National Exceptional Teachers for Disadvantaged Schools (NETDS)

where teachers are encouraged to recognise their own “predispositions” and reflect on their

pedagogical practices to “unpack” and review “such concepts” surrounding notions of

privilege (pp. 77).

Further, Comber’s (2016) literature concurs and also highlights that problems may arise in an

educational setting as a result of teacher expectation and ‘blindness’ to students’

backgrounds. Teacher’s need to adjust pedagogical practiced in order to establish

differentiation between students’ needs and acknowledge their differences equally. Further,

adapting and modifying learning where appropriate to eliminate these barriers within the

classroom.

On a government level there has been policies put forward in order to minimise the gap

between advantaged and disadvantaged socio-economic groups. The Gonski Reform looked

at allocating funding across a number of different sectors including Low SES schools. The

Gonski approach aimed to allocate and distribute resources and funding evenly in order to

reverse the disparities that were and still are present within Australian schooling systems

today (Mulheron, 2013). The reform was concerned about addressing the social justice

issues in respect to equal and equitable education therefore resulting in favourable

educational outcomes. The conclusion of Gonski’s needs-based funding policy on a

national level is not distinctive as a result of government variations influencing po licy

changes. Similarly, a policy was introduced called “The Quality schools package” in May

2017. The package focuses on the Governments goal to give Australian students the

opportunities to be most successful regardless of their context and place in which they

live (DET, 2018). The policy was actioned to ensure Australian standards to improve the

quality of schooling and assist students within schools who need additional support. It

is estimated by 2027 the policy will give schools an economical advantage of 4.2% per

student.
In direct relation to Greater Western Sydney, government policies and stategies were

extremely scarce to resource and present within this essay. Due to this limitation I

recommend that Governments state-wide and locally adopt the approach of place-

based initiatives to improving the life chances of low SES students by combatting the

disparities through effective pedagogy, raising participation educational rates and

further funding to meet the unique needs of these disadvantaged schools. Randolph

(2004) recognises the intricate complexities surrounding social exclusion in low SES

areas and promotes the requirement for additional place based integrated policy

initiatives to combat the rising concern. Randolph (2004) suggests for improvements in

targeted funding programs at a local level, place focus outcome management

strategies, local government reorganisations and specific targeted interventions. More

over, some of these one- off initiative approaches have been implemented despairingly

across areas of Greater Western Sydney such as Fairfield, Camden and Paramatta,

Canterbury and Blacktown. Evidenced in Somerville’s (2013) literature where a study

was conducted in Blacktown using the conceptual framework of ‘sense of place’ (pp.

231) across two primary and three secondary school settings. The initiative was linked

with the Higher Education participation and partnerships program (HEPPP) measuring

aspirations of students and engagement rates contributing to equity and education

outcomes for students. The study looked at supporting students from Low SES

backgrounds through teachers’ development of pedagogy and understanding of social

barriers one may face such poor physical environment, parental support, life

trajectories and financial instability. Although limited resources are available to

evaluate and reflect on the outcomes of these schemes, it is a positive step in the right
direction to close the educational gap to improve students’ life chances within the

Greater Western Sydney Region.

In conclusion, A child’s upbringing in relation to their neighbourhood and Socio -

economic determinants significantly impacts one’s life chances and educational

opportunities for impending success. Access to resources, misunderstood social

circumstances and negative power imbalances resulting in associated stigma’s and

stereotypes contribute to never-ending inequality and social exclusion. Implementation

of policies, research into effective teacher pedagogy, continual teacher evaluation and

self-reflection combined with compassion, can all play an important factor in increasing

students’ life chances and future aspirations.

 References

4250.0.55.001 - Perspectives on Education and Training: Social Inclusion, 2009. (2009).

Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4250.0.55.001Main+Features32

009

[2017] Young People in Greater Western Sydney: Beyond Stereotypes. (2017). Retrieved

from http://www.youthaction.org.au/young_people_gws_report

Comber, B. (2016). Poverty, place and pedagogy in education: research stories from front-

line workers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(4), 393-417.

doi:10.1007/s13384-016-0212-9

Dietrichson, J., Bog, M., Filges, T., & Klint Jorgensen, A. (2017). Academic Interventions for

Elementary and Middle School Students With Low Socioeconomic Status. Review of

Educational Research, 87(2), 243-282. doi:10.3102/0034654316687036

Ferfolja, T. (2008). Building Teacher Capital in Pre-Service Teachers: Reflections on a New

Teacher-Education Initiative. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2).

doi:10.14221/ajte.2008v33n2.5
Gleeson, B., & Randolph, B. (2002). Social Disadvantage and Planning in the Sydney

Context. Urban Policy and Research, 20(1), 101-107.

doi:10.1080/08111140220131636

Ho, C. (2011). Respecting the Presence of Others: School Micropublics and Everyday

Multiculturalism. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 32(6), 603-619.

doi:10.1080/07256868.2011.618106

Huppatz, K. (2015). Social Class and the Classroom. In T. Ferfolja, C. J. Diaz, & J.

Ullman (Eds.), Understanding Sociological Theory for Educational Practices (pp. 163-

177). Cambridge University press.

Jury, M., Smeding, A., Stephens, N. M., Nelson, J. E., Aelenei, C., & Darnon, C. (2017). The

Experience of Low-SES Students in Higher Education: Psychological Barriers to

Success and Interventions to Reduce Social-Class Inequality. Journal of Social Issues,

73(1), 23-41. doi:10.1111/josi.12202

Kunstman, J. W., Plant, E. A., & Deska, J. C. (2016). White ≠ Poor. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 42(2), 230-243. doi:10.1177/0146167215623270

Lampert, J., Burnett, B., & Morse, K. (2015). Destablishing Privilege. In T. Ferfolja, C. J. Diaz,

& J. Ullman (Eds.), Understanding Sociological Theory For Educational Practices

(pp. 76-89). Cambridge University Press.

Lay, N., & Arvanitakis, D. (2017). [2017] Young People in Greater Western Sydney: Beyond

Stereotypes. Retrieved from Youth Action NSW website:

http://www.youthaction.org.au/young_people_gws_report

Marchant, G. J., & Finch, W. H. (2016). Student, school, and country: The relationship of SES

and inequality to achievement. Journal of Global Research in Education and Social

Science, 6(4), 187-196.

Moore, T. G., & Fry, R. (2011). Place-based approaches to child and family services: A

literature review. Melbourne, Murdoch Children's Research Institute and The Royal

Children's Hospital Centre for Community Child Health.

Moustakim, M. (2015). 'Disaffected' youth Intersections of class and ethnicity. T. Ferfolja,

C. J. Diaz, & J. Ullman (Eds.), Understanding Sociological theory for Educational

Practices (pp. 129-142). Cambridge University Press.

Mulheron, M. (2013). Get on board for Gonski. Education, 94(1), 20.

Parsons, J. (2016, October 26). Sydney: we need to talk about our postcode prejudice.

Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/aug/23/sydney-we-

need-to-talk-about-our-postcode-prejudice
Quality Schools Package | Department of Education and Training (DET). (2018). Retrieved

from https://www.education.gov.au/quality-schools-package

Randolph, B. (2004). Social Inclusion and Place-Focused Initiatives in Western Sydney: A

Review of Current Practice. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(1), 63-78.

doi:10.1002/j.1839-4655.2004.tb01163.x

Somerville, M. (2013). The ‘placetimemattering’ of aspiration in the Blacktown Learning

Community. Critical Studies in Education, 54(3), 231-244.

doi:10.1080/17508487.2013.831365

Tikkanen, J. (2016). Concern or confidence? Adolescents' identity capital and future worry

in different school contexts. Journal of Adolescence, 46, 14-24.

doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.10.011

Tucker-Drob, E. M., Briley, D. A., & Harden, K. P. (2013). Genetic and Environmental

Influences on Cognition Across Development and Context. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 22(5), 349-355. doi:10.1177/0963721413485087

Weis, L., & Dolby, N. (2012). Social Class and Education: Global Perspectives. Hoboken:

Taylor & Francis.

Wrench, A., Hammond, C., McCallum, F., & Price, D. (2013). Inspire to aspire: raising

aspirational outcomes through a student well-being curricular focus. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(9), 932-947. doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.718804