Reflective Response: Analysis of Australian Education Meritocracy

This report provides a reflective response to the concept of meritocracy within the Australian education system. It examines the arguments of Tait (2016) and other scholars regarding the challenges to meritocratic ideals, specifically addressing issues of inequality and the influence of factors beyond merit, such as quotas. The analysis explores how the distribution of resources, gender biases, and the quota system can undermine the principles of fairness and equal opportunity. The report references several studies and articles to support its claims, including works by Kenway (2013), Mijs (2016), and Weiler (2008). Ultimately, it aims to assess the extent to which the Australian education system truly embodies meritocratic principles and suggests potential areas for improvement to ensure greater equality and fairness in educational opportunities.

Running head: REFLECTIVE RESPONSE
REFLECTIVE RESPONSE
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

REFLECTIVE RESPONSE 1
Why does Tait (2016) argue that the idea of Australian education being meritocratic is a
myth? To what extent is Taits a valid argument
There has been much debate to address the intractable issue of the inequality in the
Australian schools and it has been denounced by the media or the educational circles as well.
The idea of Australian education being meritocratic as a myth holds true when there has been
no true distribution of resources as a liberal individualism, market individualism and as social
and democratic approaches (Kenway, 2013). The school education has been found to
dominant logics and the need for challenging the system has been observed. There are indeed
many sectors that have been fighting for the equality in education and to make it meritorious
that should be the actual step towards making the education equal for all. According to
studies, there are many situations when selection criteria are based on merit, men and not
women are found to get a better opportunity. However, favouring men cannot be the only
means of favouring the system of education in Australia.
Australian education system is also based on the quota system where many are found
to get admission or chance in the particular school or college as a provision of their quota and
not as a deserving candidate who can be selected on the basis of their merits. Merit is
synonymous to equality, fairness and objectivity where it is assumed that every single person
should get the opportunity and acquire it (Mijs, 2016). It has been evident that in the tertiary
education in Australia, women are represented more in the senior roles. In these cases as well,
equally qualified men or women do not get the opportunity what the one having quota gets.
In Australia, the notion for the meritocracy is deeply concerned with fairness and equality but
the same approach is found to be lost at many instances. Equal opportunities are not given to
the boys and girls of the school and they are more likely to favour those who have quotas
(Weiler, 2008). Much intervention has been made towards improving this condition and it is

REFLECTIVE RESPONSE 2
expected that the same will bring better opportunity and equality in the education system of
Australia.

REFLECTIVE RESPONSE 3
References:
Kenway, J. (2013). Challenging inequality in Australian schools: Gonski and
beyond. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 34(2), 286-308.
Mijs, J. J. (2016). The unfulfillable promise of meritocracy: three lessons and their
implications for justice in education. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 14-34.
Weiler, K. (2008). Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education. Discourse: Studies
in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(4), 433-437.