 
Week 4 - Local School Management
|  | Can Local Management Improve Learning Opportunities for Secondary School Students in Disadvantaged Areas? |
| |
Listing of Papers | |
MS ANN MORROW
Victoria, Australia
ONCE HAILED as the vehicle for teacher and school community empowerment, in recent times, the devolution of decision-making to schools has suffered a bad press. Victoria, for example, has had a significant history of experimentation with devolution: the very Act that established the public school system in 1872 referred to Boards of Advice, and the 1910 Education Act authorised the appointment of School Committees to promote their schools and provide advice on school management.
In 1971 regions were established, ostensibly to bring schools and administration closer together. In 1974 Victorian technical schools began to select their own principals and vice-principals and School Councils had their powers increased and were given legal status in the following year. The regional boards, which had been established in 1985 by the Labor Minister, Robert Fordham - were disestablished six years later by another Labor Minister, Joan Kirner. By the nineties, the idea of local school management - understandably desired by principals - was becoming associated in the minds of many other sections of the education community with cuts in government expenditure and the dramatic down-sizing of the Victorian public system by the Kennett Coalition government.
Claims that school self-management might actually generate gains in students' learning are routinely treated with great scepticism, except by the most ardent New Right commentators. In part, this is because of the general suspicion among educators that the measurement of learning is, at best, an inexact science, and at worst, a process that can easily be abused - usually to the detriment of the schools of the public sector. But the more important reason for practitioners' scepticism comes from their own experience. They perceive that radical changes in education policy invariably require more resources, rather than fewer, yet rarely are accompanied by the injections of funding that might increase the chances of successful implementation.
More Autonomy, More Control
To be fair, the 'founding father' of self-governing schools in Victoria, Professor Brian Caldwell, while arguing that 'exclusive reliance on public funding (for schooling was) no longer feasible', did draw attention to the problem of the Government's introducing school self-management in tandem with expenditure cuts. To his credit, too, he stressed the lack of hard evidence for the relationship between self-management and increased learning. In the event, these polite disclaimers were ignored, and, in 1993, against a background of school closures, teacher reductions, and tightening purse strings, the Victorian Government introduced Schools of the Future. From 1998, it prepared to extend the degree of autonomy and financial incentives for the 51 schools (out of 1,650) that had opted to become Schools of the Third Millennium (later, Self Governing Schools). Schools of the Future had been given increased discretion over the expenditure of their enrolments-based budgets, and their principals, over the selection of staff. But, as in New Zealand and other sites of neo-liberal reform, their new 'independence' was accompanied by stricter-than-ever controls over the very area in which most schools would have valued some genuinely increased autonomy - that of the curriculum:
'In many ways we feel more controlled by the centre than ever before with the regulations and stipulations of what a school must achieve and deliver, accountability frameworks, growing emphasis on tied funding and so on. It often appears that the real decisions are made well before schools have any actual decision making influence. This feeling again highlights the complexity of the concept of devolution of decision making and ... perhaps its impracticality in the ultimate sense.'
Self Governing Schools Policy Dismantled
On November 9, 1999, the newly-elected Labor Government announced its plans to implement a pre-election commitment to dismantle the Self Governing Schools policy. Following some initial confusion, Labor's alternative policy was clarified as one that aimed to keep all public schools within the system, yet with 'enhanced self management':
'Schools want to have a high degree of self management ... It should be in a strong state framework that sets standards and demands accountability.'
The scrapping of the Self Governing Schools policy was aimed at placating a further group of critics of self-management, viz. those who feared - mainly on equity grounds - the ultimate break-up of the Victorian public school system into a network of atomised, self-standing institutions - 'de facto independent schools' competing with each other for the 'best' students and teachers.
Focus on the Retention of Disadvantaged Secondary Students
Within this policy context, how can it be made possible for disadvantaged secondary school students to stay on at school, and to access post-school education and employment?
The improvement of students' opportunities to learn should, of course, be the primary motivation for all change in education policy. Nevertheless, it has to be said that, if proof positive of better learning were required before any change were made, students would still be writing on wooden-framed slates. The rest of this paper outlines some possibilities that 'enhanced self-management' within a public, systemic framework might generate with respect to just one education objective, viz. that of making the school experience more satisfying for disadvantaged secondary school students and facilitating their successful transfer to post-school education and work.
The observations made in this paper derive from an examination of local and 'top-down' attempts to achieve this objective in a Victorian outer metropolitan region (Region X) which has significant numbers of disadvantaged families - the type of clientele described more accurately by Pat Thomson as 'students and families in communities placed at risk', and elsewhere, as 'neighbourhoods made poor' (my emphases).
These observations lend weight to the premise that central policy-makers should direct resources to the point at which the most effective influence can be brought to bear on the issue that necessitated the policy in the first place . In this case, that point of influence is the school, which usually knows its students and families, and its local community, rather better than do centrally-located administrators, and is therefore better-placed to act on this knowledge.
Local Community Support is Essential
Whether individual schools or clusters of schools are the most appropriate recipients of resources targeted towards this objective depends on the context. Irrespective of whether schools decide to 'go it alone' or to cluster with neighbouring schools, one thing is increasingly obvious: in the current environment, they can no longer successfully prepare young people for their post-school lives without the strong support and genuine commitment of their local communities.
The Reality of Secondary Education in Region X
Many of the issues that Region X confront, as it works towards the achievement of its objective for local youth, it has in common with other regions with similar demographic profiles. The most significant of these is its above-state-average unemployment levels - and its even higher unemployment figures for youth. Both statistics have dramatic impacts on the region's schools, and on the composition of their student populations.
Continuing high youth unemployment, and the Commonwealth's new restrictions on the Youth Allowance, ensure a quota of anxious, frustrated students in middle and post-compulsory classes. Teachers report even earlier signs (i.e., from primary school level) of the type of alienation that will prevent some students gaining the sort of confidence or sense of well-being that is a prerequisite to experiencing success at school.
Some of these students are new arrivals, some are homeless, some are affected by substance abuse, some have suffered trauma (or continue to do so). For very alienated students, it is unlikely that any of the existing post-compulsory 'pathways' are appropriate. There has long been recognition in the region that additional and alternative programs offering experiential learning are needed - at least temporarily - by such young people. So are better-resourced welfare, counselling and 'pathways advisory services' in schools. And these should connect to external services that students can access before they leave school, and continue to use thereafter. Strategies that generate participatory, as well as more technically 'educational' opportunities for students are needed: disadvantaged young people need help to be integrated into their own communities.
Principals, teachers and administrators are aware that high unemployment levels coexist with certain skill shortages in the region. The extent to which schools should, within the limited confines left to their discretion, tailor their curricula to the needs of local industry is a hotly contested issue. But the lack of alignment between local skill shortages and enrolments in related VET areas, both in schools and in TAFE, must represent at least some missed employment and training opportunities for some of the region's young people, and is a situation that cries out for collaborative, strategic action.
Low VET Enrolments
Practitioners and administrators have nominated at least two reasons for the region's overall low enrolments in VET courses. The first is the continuing resistance by some teachers and schools to the integration of employment-related (VET) areas into the mainstream ('academic') curriculum. (Some schools, for example, are encouraging their Year 11 students to complete their VET units in that year so as to 'free up' Year 12 for concentration on the ENTER score). In the last 18 months, the VCE has been revised to place more emphasis on the external examination component. The impact of the new arrangements on Year 12 enrolments, in general, and VET enrolments, in particular, remains to be seen. In any case, the need for greatly 'beefed-up' professional development is obvious: processes that have been identified as PD priorities include teaching and learning methodologies, strategic planning (of resources and curriculum), familiarisation with the operation of modern workplaces, and building partnerships with external agencies.
The second reason for low VET enrolments relates to funding shortfalls (for example, for the implementation of VET in the VCE). Several of the region's smaller schools have a resource base that is too small to permit adequate VET provision - a situation that demands inter-school co-operation at the cluster level. Even so, attempts by the region to achieve more comprehensive and evenly spread VET provision have been plagued by a lack of funds - particularly for the co-ordination of joint efforts, such as the management of traineeships and apprenticeships, or the tracking of departing students. Co-ordination is commonly funded with spasmodic, one-off grants, sufficient only to cover the costs of part-time or short-term activity. (Region X believes it missed out on funding from DETYA Co-ordination Programs because the dollars were allocated via a tender process, rather than on a strategic basis, such as the selection of geographical areas with particular skills shortages and employment needs.
Local and Regional Initiatives - and Those From on High
Meanwhile, Region X has not been sitting on its collective hands. The efforts of the region's education community to improve the situation of their youth continues - even in the face of resource shortages. A regional VET in Schools strategic planning process has been established, followed by collaborative action to implement the new plans, and to meet the PD needs that these have generated. Deterred only temporarily by the failure to attract Commonwealth funding, the region has set up an Apprenticeship Trainee and Management Committee. Renewed action to forge mutually productive school-TAFE partnerships has been launched, as have fresh attempts to attract DETYA funding for curriculum components relating to VET in the VCE competencies. Creative thinking is occurring in relation to students contemplating leaving school prematurely: English and Maths supplementation is being provided, work placements arranged, and VCE Industry and Enterprise studies invoked to increase the relevance of the curriculum for such students.
Bit by bit, some positive results are being achieved. They appear in the form of gradually improving attendance here; better relationships between teachers and students there. Positive changes in behaviour have been observed in some schools, achievement gains in others.
Flexibility is Valuable
Local school management has been important in this continuing activity. Some principals have valued the flexibility that enables them to take instant advantage of opportunities that arise 'on their doorstep'- like latching on to the 'Youth' component of the local municipal Council's economic development plan, for example. All principals have appreciated being able to direct funds to their schools' most urgent priorities. The novelty wears off, of course, when choices have to be made between equally desired areas of the curriculum. Or when funds for professional development have to be diverted to an urgent maintenance crisis. The immediate injection of funding provided by the Bracks Government was helpful. But several public schools in the region have never recovered from the Kennett cuts: quite simply, they need more teachers. 'Reducing the size of the group' is a major priority for schools with large numbers of disadvantaged kids.
It has to be said, too, that local school management is no substitute for a school having a clear vision. That vision now has to include strategies for situating the school in a network of education and non-education partners, collectively striving to achieve betterment for all the kids in the area.
Incongruously, local management seems to have caused some schools in the region to become more, rather than less, inward looking - to detach themselves from their local environment at the very time they should be clustering to promote more workable relationships between schools and the municipal, district, or regional community. Yet, supported by a long-standing 'co-ordinated area program', the region now boasts at least two embryonic, but promising networks of just that kind. In one of these, the local government authority has been the catalyst; other partners include a university, VET providers, a private foundation, local employers, and Commonwealth and state Education Departments (causing its critics to interpret it as a 'top down' initiative). Not all 'top down' initiatives carry negatives for schools. The local government authority in question (whose immediate past mayor was, in any case, a teacher at a local school) is energetically promoting the idea that a 'customised transition plan' for every young person in the municipality is a feasible objective. Moreover, it is viewing that task as one which no longer the exclusive responsibility of schools, but of the community as a whole.
The Continuing Need for a Systemic Framework
The major criticism of the Self Governing Schools policy of the Kennett Government was its potential to create 'winners' and 'losers'. In some areas, that was an idea that took hold because of specific incidents of funding being diverted from the (Stage 1) Schools of the Future to provide the financial incentive that had been promised to the (Stage 2) Schools of the Third Millennium/Self Governing Schools. But an environment for public schools that is simultaneously resource-lean and competitive spells death to the notion of roughly even and good quality standards of provision across the State. Each of the two new Labor Education Ministers in Victoria has launched reviews in their respective areas of responsibility. While not focused specifically on funding, the reviews provide the Government with an opportunity for a reassessment of public expenditure on education in this State. Perhaps, too, collaborative action between self-managing schools will be explicitly supported at state government level. The systemic framework for 'enhanced self-management' continues to be needed because the allocation of resources in ways that ensure decent educational opportunities for all the state's children remains a government responsibility.
_____________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ms Ann Morrow was a teacher between 1963 and 1972 and, after the birth of her children, a children's services consultant for Community Child Care. She joined the Victorian Public Service in 1982 and, between 1985 and 1988, was the Director of the Social Development Division in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and a member of the foundation Board of Holmesglen College of TAFE.
Between 1988 and 1991 she was the chief executive officer of the Victorian Ministry of Education, during which time she was a member of the 'Finn Review' into Young People's Participation in Education and Training. From 1991 to 1996, she chaired the Schools Council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training. In 1996 she established the Women's Executive Development Program for the five universities of the Australian Technology Network, before becoming a doctoral student at the Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne.
Between 1974 and 1983, she was an elected representative in the former City of Malvern. In 1979, she became that municipality's first woman Mayor and in 1981 was elected to the Executive of the Municipal Association of Victoria.
Ann Morrow is a Fellow of the Australian College of Education, and is on the Board of Trustees of the Dusseldorp Skills Forum. A long-term member of Women's Electoral Lobby, she is also the Convenor of the Australian Schools Lobby.
Ann Morrow can be contacted by email:
annmorrow@hard.net.au
|
|
| | |
