1 / 16

A Judicial Review

A Judicial Review. Secondary School Places Allocation (SSPA) System. Historical Background. July 1998: parents lodged complaints on discrimination in SSPA September 1998: EOC launched Formal Investigation August 1999: EOC released Report finding gender discrimination

fay
Download Presentation

A Judicial Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Judicial Review Secondary School Places Allocation (SSPA) System

  2. Historical Background • July 1998: parents lodged complaints on discrimination in SSPA • September 1998: EOC launched Formal Investigation • August 1999: EOC released Report finding gender discrimination • April 2000: ED announced refusal to change • July 2000: EOC applied for leave for Judicial Review • May 2001: High Court Commenced hearings • June 2001: High Court found ED in violation of SDO

  3. Gender is Considered • Using gender curves to scale IA scores resulting in students with lower IA scores getting higher placement scores. • Banding of students, by sex, so that girls in the majority of cases needed a higher scaled score to get into a district band. • Fixed quotas of female/male students in co-educational schools resulting in a girl/boy with a higher scaled score being denied a place at her/his preferred school whereas a student of another gender, with a lower score, might be admitted.

  4. Stated Purpose of Scaling • Scaling is used to compare the standards of the different schools. • If so, the internal IA rank order of the students should not change after scaling.

  5. The Two Gender Curves Intersect at 70 Percent Intersects at 70 % y x

  6. Impact of Gender Curve on Upper 30 Percent: More boys are advantaged y x

  7. Impact of Gender Curve on Lower 70 percent of Students: More boys are disadvantaged y x

  8. Banding by Sex • Boys and girls are first separated by sex. • Each gender group is divided into 5 different bands within each of the 18 school districts. • Each band consists of 20% of the number of students in the sex-segregated rank order of academic merit. • The band-cutting score of each of the district band was different for boys and girls because of the separate processing by sex into 20% segments.

  9. Impact on Boys and Girls:Banding by Sex • For Band 1: • Girls needed higher scaled scores to get into Band 1 in 11 out of 18 school nets. • Boys needed higher scores than girls to get into Band 1 in 7 school nets. • Excluding Band 5: • Girls needed higher scores to get into 60 of all the district bands. • Boys needed higher scores to get into 12 of the district bands.

  10. Allocation By Fixed Proportions: Gender Quota • Each school agrees with the Education Department on the number of boys and girls to be admitted into the school. • If a school has 50 places for boys and 50 for girls, the 51st girl/boy would not be able to get into the school as there is no place for a student of that sex. • Another student, of another sex, could get into the school, with a lower score, as there might still be places for students of that sex.

  11. More Boys Got Their First Choice of Schools in All 5 Years

  12. Scaling as a Special Measure for Boys • Scaling does not consistently protect boys. • Boys receive lower scaled scores, in the lower 70 percent of the gender curve, even if their IA scores are higher than their female classmates.

  13. Banding as a Special Measure for Boys • Banding does not consistently protect boys. • For Band One, boys needed higher scores to get into 7 of the 18 school nets. • Excluding Band 5, boys needed higher scores to get into 12 of the 72 district bands.

  14. Gender Quota as a Special Measure • Gender Quota does not consistently protect boys. • If a school has admitted its quota of boys it would not be able to admit another boy as there would not be any available places for boys.

  15. Held • All three gender-based mechanisms challenged by the EOC as being discriminatory are contrary to the SDO and are unlawful. • Declaratory relief granted.

  16. Computer Simulation • Impact of Discriminatory System on 2000 allocation: 3 bands and Past average AAT for scaling with Gender Quota: • Boys get 57.72% of first choice of school • Girls get 54.82% of first choice of school • Impact of Non-discriminatory System on 3 Bands: • Boys get 54.29% of first choice of school • Girls get 57.95% of first choice of school

More Related