 
Week 4 - Local School Management
|  | Excellent Teaching: The Goal of Successful School Reform |
| |
Listing of Papers | |
MR EDWARD J. BRIERLEY
Victoria, Australia
TEACHERS are the key to the effectiveness of teaching and learning programs in schools. It is the task of governments, school leaders and school councils to provide the conditions under which such teaching and learning can be as good as it possibly can. What, then, of the efforts to optimise teaching and learning through changes to school structures or school support? I am of the view that what counts in education is what happens in the classroom. Unless pedagogy is changed, structural change is a painful exercise for little reward.
Schools of the Future
Victoria has seen the implementation of a number of initiatives in the areas of school self-management and self-governance over the past eight years. In 1993, the newly elected conservative government introduced their Schools of the Future (SotF) policy. More functions and responsibilities were devolved to schools. The central office and regional offices were significantly downsized. My school (Wangaratta High School) was expected to do more, with approximately 8% fewer teaching staff. This staffing cutback was a consequence of the newly elected government's budget cuts.
What were the results of the implementation of this new policy? To help shed some light on the outcomes of the SotF initiative, a research project was established in 1993 as a partnership between the Victorian Primary Principals Association, the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals, the Directorate of School Education and the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. Its function was to monitor the opinions of school leaders on the implementation and outcomes of the Schools of the Future Program.
This longitudinal study surveyed principals of state schools to ascertain their views on how they viewed the success, or otherwise, of elements of this attempt at devolution of authority, responsibility and resources to schools. The study took place over a six-year period and involved seven surveys. Whilst modest improvements in student learning outcomes were claimed as one of the outcomes, there is no doubt that, despite the increased workload for school leaders, the new policy was very popular with principals. 'The results from this comprehensive survey indicate [that] the current [devolved] arrangements for school administration are overwhelmingly preferred to those that existed earlier.'
Whilst the debate about improved student learning outcomes raged, school leaders were of the view that they had more control over resources and the administration of the school. This, in turn, allowed opportunities for enhanced leadership of the school community, and it is this capacity that was eagerly sought by principals.
A Vexed Question
Movement towards the devolution of authority and responsibility to schools has been a vexed question for governments and school communities in Victoria. For government schools working within the state system, the issues for the politicians centred on the notions of efficiency, responsibility and accountability. How much responsibility is devolved to schools is a consequence of the government's ideology, their view of their own susceptibility to political and financial risk, and to the maturity of the schools to take on the additional tasks devolved to them.
If governments believe that schools can't be trusted to undertake the tasks involved in educating students, then the focus shifts to 'control of process', with a strong emphasis on accountability. School auditing focuses on compliance. School preparation for such audits means that a great emphasis is placed on making sure that the necessary paperwork is 'right', and that all i's and the t's have been dotted and crossed. Government policy becomes invasive to school purpose and function. Central bureaucracies fight out policy and process with central stakeholders. Schools are flooded with manuals and guidelines. Proformas arrive daily, demanding information, informing schools of central policy expectations and the accountability process. The problem is that big bureaucracies devise complex procedures, which require bigger bureaucracies to support them, and to account for them. Resources are deflected away from effective student learning programs. The 'pig' is weighed frequently, but not fed adequately!
A Question of Trust
If governments believe that schools do have the capacity to perform the educative task, then the focus for government should be on the formulation of policy, the establishment of guidelines about what is to be taught, and to what standard, the resourcing of schools, and the monitoring of school efficiency and effectiveness.
Such policies, therefore, reflect upon the willingness of governments to treat their education workers more as professionals than skilled or semi-skilled workers, who require a bureaucracy to support their every need, and to direct them in their work.
The type of monitoring process in place in a system provides a telling indicator of the opinion of governments about the capacity of schools to perform their responsibilities. If school accountability processes are largely summative and focused on compliance, then skills and knowledge - and the capacity to improve - are considered by that government to be poor. If the monitoring process involves significant formative processes, if it focuses on outcomes, and if it utilises the professional skills present in the school community then the government is sending a strong signal that it values, and will rely on, the professional skills of teachers and school leaders.
The monitoring process also may lead to 'achieving a balance of pressure and support' for schools, when action to assist school improvement is deemed necessary.
Just how well schools are ready and able to perform the educative, leadership and administrative tasks asked of them is partly a function of the capacity of the teachers, the school leaders and the school council at their specific tasks. It is also dependent upon the resources that schools have access to, and also importantly, the flexibility of use of those resources. Professional capability in teaching, plus the resources to enable it to happen, will result in positive outcomes.
Schools of the Third Millennium
In 1997 the Government announced a further development of the Schools of the Future policy into Schools of the Third Millennium, later known as Self Governing Schools (SGS). This initiative made school councils the employer of all staff in the school, delivered school grants to the school almost entirely as cash, and provided additional cash to schools as compensation for 'opting out' of state-delivered services, such as student support services. Whilst secondary principals supported 'enhanced' self-management, they baulked at two elements of the SGS policy. The first was the employment of the professional staff by school councils. The second was the funding formula to be implemented in such schools. The formula provided money for Level 1 Teachers (classroom teachers) on the basis of the state-wide average cost for such staff. The school, of course, had to pay its staff to the level of the Award rates. In three-quarters of secondary schools, this income figure was not sufficient to pay that amount. This meant that only about 25 of some 300 secondary schools in the State joined the program. However, as a result of their experience, we have learned some valuable lessons about the potential of such an approach.
A Vehement Debate
The self-governing schools debate in Victoria was particularly vehement. I am an office bearer in both the Victorian and Australian secondary principals' professional associations, and can attest to the fact that it was - and remains - a passionate issue at both state and national levels. At the heart of the matter is the perceived tension between the strong view and desire of most secondary principals to be free of bureaucratic interference and overwhelming state-wide policy, and to make the resourcing of schools more effective and efficient. Equally strong is the view that all students and staff should be treated equitably and fairly, within a socially just policy framework.
Despite two years of discussions, meetings and forums held by Victorian state secondary school leaders, with a view to resolving this tension, unanimity has by no means been reached. However, major themes are beginning to emerge.
Just what were the things that some of these 'former Self Governing Schools' able to achieve that others were not? From discussions with the leaders of those schools, the advantage had mainly to do with the capacity of the school to do the following.
- Have a leadership and governance structure of its own choosing.
- Enter into formal partnerships and contracts.
- Hire appropriate staff at appropriate salaries and conditions.
- Have school entitlement resources delivered directly to the school.
- Devise their own staff/program accountability and reward systems.
Leadership and Governance Structures
Most of the secondary Self Governing Schools substantially altered the leadership structure within the school. Positions were created which did not fit easily into the centralised career structure. Some of these positions were highly specialised, and the remuneration reflected that. Many non-Self Governing Schools could not match the remuneration paid by the Self Governing Schools because they had to pay rates dictated by the Award, and that centralised policy would allow.
The Self Governing Schools were more likely to add 'expertise' to their school than non-Self Governing Schools. They argued that a more expert school council operated much more efficiently and effectively. Many of these schools also increased the access of parents and the community to key decision-making in the school, by increasing their involvement in the school council sub-committees. Such an approach really did deliver a school governance structure which was genuinely inclusive of all voices in the school community.
Formal Partnerships and Contracts
The capacity to enter into formal partnerships and contracts turned out to be a vital factor in the capacity of the school to enter into realistic negotiations with other parties. Also apparent was the enthusiasm of both parties to cement such a partnership. Whilst it could be argued that all schools always had the capacity to apply to the Government for the power to enter into formal contracts (and a few schools did), the underlying message to non-school partners was that such partnerships were, if not encouraged, then liable to be tampered with by the bureaucracy. This was a major disincentive.
There is no doubt that such partnerships become a lot easier to arrange when the non-school party understands that the sole group they have to deal with is the school council. Such contracts were typically used for the development of a shared facility (e.g., an automotive workshop) or for service delivery (e.g., student welfare support services) or for complex arrangements for the use of facilities and the delivery of services sometimes between four or five parties.
Staff Selection and Variation of Remuneration
All Victorian schools can hire their own staff. Because of the funding model for Self Governing Schools, only a quarter of secondary schools could afford to participate in the program. In fact, less than 10% did so. Many of the secondary schools in the Self Governing Schools program were able to add incentives to the remuneration package offered to a teacher. This was another contentious issue because the extra remuneration offered to teachers had the capacity to attract staff away from non-Self Governing Schools. The Self Governing Schools were able to make early job offers. They were also able to fill positions because of the flexibility of the remuneration packages offered.
Resources Direct to the School
It became very clear that when resource entitlements were delivered directly to the school, as cash, then very much more satisfactory arrangements could be made for service delivery. For example, student support services monies were delivered to the schools at the rate of around $75 per student. This enabled Self Governing Schools to establish and maintain a service that was much more comprehensive and effective than what had existed before. In study tours of the United Kingdom and New Zealand, I was told that the schools in receipt of monies to set up their own model of service delivery were able to make much more effective use of the money than if the money was used to purchase a service, and delivered via the bureaucracy. Many principals of such schools said that they could drive the dollar three times further.
School-Based Accountability Systems
Self Governing Schools were able to vary the performance management systems in the school, so that they were more streamlined and effective. Further, these systems were able to be altered and refocused, as the need arose. What then, do Victorian school leaders see as the 'next step' in achieving a greater degree of devolution for all schools? This is the challenge for a Ministerial Working Party which has been set up and is currently calling for submissions, and establishing a consultation process, in Victoria. In meeting with the twelve VASSP regional groups, and listening to the views of nearly 700 secondary Principal Class Officers, it is very apparent that their views still reflect the findings of the research project mentioned earlier.
School leaders do not want to go back. They wish to continue down the path of devolution of responsibility and authority. They also recognise that any such change must be accompanied by simple and non-time consuming accountability processes.
If this can be achieved, schools will be significantly better equipped to support teachers. Under a well-designed model of devolution, school leaders will be able to respond to student and teacher needs more flexibly, and with a greater armory of strategies and resources. It is this capacity of schools that the SGS leaders argue is responsible for improving the performance of students.
And it is for this reason that most secondary school leaders in Victoria want to proceed further down the track of school self-management.
_____________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mr Ted Brierley has been with the Victorian Education Department for 28 years. After teaching positions in both provincial and country Victoria, Ted was appointed Principal of Timboon High School in 1985 and Wangaratta High School in 1992. He has been involved in departmental policy development, through his membership of the principals association, and was part of the Department delegation to Edmonton, Canada, when the School Global Budget concept was being developed. Ted served on the Principals Reference Group of the so-called 'Caldwell' Committee. For a brief period in 1996 he was seconded to the position of an 'Independent Reviewer', during the piloting of the Accountability Framework now in place in government schools in Victoria.
Ted has been a member of the committee of the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals (VASSP) since 1987 and has served in the position of Convenor of the Curriculum Committee, Treasurer and is now the President of the Association. He has been an executive member of the Australian Secondary Principals Association since 1995. Ted was awarded a fellowship of the Australian College of Education in 1995. In 1999 he was elected Deputy President of the Australian Secondary Principals Association (ASPA).
Ted Brierley can be contacted on email:
brierted@mfmm.net.au
|
|
| | |
