 
Week 4 - Local School Management
|  | Resource Flexibility in Partnerships 21:
Local Management in South Australia |
| |
Listing of Papers | |
MR TREVOR ROGERS, MR JIM DAVIES AND MS TERRY SIZER
South Australia, Australia
Introduction
Partnerships 21 enables and promotes local decision making and flexibility within a broad, systemic framework of policy, priorities and mutual accountability. It is the local management model for South Australia.
The flexible use of resources within the local management framework is an important element supporting quality improvement. This paper explores the resourcing flexibilities inherent in the Global Budget, human resources and asset management.
This paper should be read in conjunction with the other companion papers from the Partnerships 21 Taskforce for this online conference:
- 'An Overview of Partnerships 21'
- 'Governance in Partnerships 21'
- 'Quality Improvement and Accountability In Partnerships 21'
Background
The purpose of Partnerships 21 is to improve the quality of education, care and training for the children and students of South Australia. This reflects the findings recorded in the ministerial report, Community Partnerships in Education. A Report on Local School Management in South Australia. This Report, the blueprint for Partnerships 21, was completed by Associate Professor Ian Cox, following extensive consultation throughout the South Australian community. The general notion of flexibility in the application of resources to learning activities is found throughout it.
'Local school management in South Australia is a process to improve school operations through shared responsibility for educational outcomes and by accomplishing new flexibility in professional and administrative duties compatible and sensitive to community differences and strengths'.
The principle of equity was a major theme in the ministerial inquiry.
'There must be strong commitment to adjusting resources to reflect social indicators of poverty, disadvantage and student needs.'
'Support is needed to meet the learning needs of these children in poor or socially limited communities.'
In relation to human resources, the following were seen as necessary:
- 'Reduce unnecessary practices that do not add value and thereby enable schools to focus more intensely on teaching and learning.'
- 'Enhance the ability of country, in particular remote and isolated and difficult to staff metropolitan schools to attract and retain staff.'
In relation to physical resources, the following were seen as necessary:
- 'Develop resource allocation formulae and future models which include social indicators, and other mechanisms to ensure that disadvantaged schools are significantly better off and which improve incentives.'
- 'Develop resource and risk management and quality assurance mechanisms, accountability and reporting frameworks required for the future.'
The Partnerships 21 Services Agreement is the document, which formalises the acceptance by state office and the local Partnerships 21 schools/preschools of their mutual obligations towards each other, in relation to the local management of that site. It includes the commitments of state office to provide resources to the site and the site's responsibilities in the use of those resources.
The Global Budget: Financial Management
The Global Budget is the mechanism by which Partnerships 21 schools and preschools receive their funding. It incorporates all of the resources that are allocated to them using the existing range of formulae, indexes and budget components. It reflects current resource allocation policy as well as new and developing policies such as those that address educational disadvantage.
A Resource Profile for each site has been developed, which describes the actual total resource allocation the year prior to the implementation of local management. It provides base line data to school and preschool communities and is used to ensure that no school or preschool is worse off when adopting the Partnerships 21 model.
The calculation of the Global Budget for schools includes a fixed base per school, a per capita amount for students at different year levels, additional per capita amounts for students from differing disadvantaged backgrounds and Special Program allocations. The move from a corporate budgeting model to a local management model has required some negotiation between local sites and central office in establishing some projected costs in some areas of the Global Budget. These include utilities (gas, electricity, etc.), and breakdown maintenance.
The Partnerships 21 Global Budget is paid into each site's bank account in 12 monthly amounts. Monthly reports are provided that detail the monthly budget allocation, amounts paid by State Office on their behalf (e.g., salaries, utilities, maintenance and cleaning) and the net cash transferred into the site's bank account. The site retains savings made through more efficient management and are able to carry these forward from the previous year. An overdraft facility is available to sites to assist with managing their cash flow.
The three-year cash flow using the Global Budget gives sites and their Governing Councils the flexibility and authority to make their own decisions about how to best use their resources to meet their students' needs and to pursue planned priorities identified in the site's Partnerships Plan. The global budget is enrolment driven and enables schools to predict, with reasonable accuracy, their resource levels over the period of the Partnerships Plan and Services Agreement.
The integrated management of resources is focused in the local community, maximising flexibility and effectiveness. Most importantly, as outlined in the other Partnerships 21 conference papers, it is the explicit connections between resources use and planning and outcomes that are the key.
The Global Budget Management Tool is a software package, comprising linked Excel spreadsheets, that gives sites the IT capability to strategically plan and monitor the use of their resources. Sites can use the tool to examine various flexibilities and scenarios in resource allocations and to prepare the associated cash flow summaries across a three-year period. A linked module manages the monthly financial reports to the site's Governing Council. Another module is currently being developed to allow sites to manage a range of human resource flexibilities.
Staffing Flexibility
The vision for Human Resource Management through Partnerships 21 is for increased flexibility in leadership profiles in sites, in the deployment of teachers and ancillary staff and with the classification of school support staff. This will need to occur within the parameters of the policy, legislation and industrial agreements of the day. Current flexibilities include re-configuration of leadership positions, local selection of staff and leave management where human resources are included within the Global Budget. Schools receive teaching and ancillary staff entitlement reports and Temporary Relief Teacher allocation and usage reports to provide guidance in the proportion of the Global Budget that is taken up by human resources.
To support the effective operation of Partnerships 21 at the local level, state office provides additional allocations to cover award increases, manages employer liability for long service leave, superannuation and work cover and maintains staff records relating to appointments, pay and leave.
Asset Management
The Partnerships 21 framework of local management includes the development of Asset Management Plans for all sites. The Asset Management Plan is based on clear responsibilities for building owners and users and on recognised standards. The plan provides a basis on which the Minister of Education, as building owner, and the local community, as building user, can plan and undertake efficient and effective management of the assets. The Minister, as owner of the buildings and grounds, remains responsible for providing resources to upgrade and improve the assets. The site is responsible for managing and funding, through its global budget, routine breakdown maintenance, most of which is contracted to facilities management contractors with whole of government contracts.
The Asset Management Planning process is the vehicle for the local community to adapt its physical environment to meet its specific needs and educational priorities as identified in its Partnerships Plan. The state office and the local site, through an assessment of three key benchmarks, capacity, condition and suitability, jointly develop the Asset Management Plan. The principal or pre school director and community representatives are involved in the process. The benchmarks are defined as:
- Capacity: the assessment of the amount of space available in comparison with the established standards.
- Condition: the condition and performance of the physical infrastructure and its components.
- Suitability: suitability of assets in relation to the curriculum and learning activities.
Flexibility in the management of physical assets is built in through the dynamic nature of the Asset Management Plans. Achievements of elements of the plan will be reflected through an annual review and the identification of new needs as they arise, and as new educational priorities are identified and integrated into the Partnerships Plan.
Risk Management
This significant shift to local decision making brings with it the need to manage risk at both corporate and the site level. The management of risk has been addressed through the establishment of a Risk Fund of $28.5 million, which is managed by a steering committee predominantly made up of site leaders. Its key terms of reference include:
- developing awareness, policies and procedures for the understanding of risk and the effective operation of the risk fund in the context of local management;
- developing an incentive based approach to support risk management in the context of local management;
- recommending to the Chief Executive risk minimisation strategies and projects;
- evaluating policies, strategies and projects and the effectiveness of risk management expenditure.
In practical terms, the Risk Fund provides full cost recovery support to sites to cover expenditure in the event of fire, miscellaneous disaster, theft and vandalism. The fund has also been structured to support a number of 'operational programs' that are designed to either minimise exposure to risk, or to address operational issues as they arise. Included in these categories are issues such as provision of access for disabled students, provision of security systems and fire alarms and the provision of emergency accommodation. The third element is funding for 'contingency programs', such as covering expenditure in relation to unplanned major plant or equipment failure and for unforseen or excessive breakdown maintenance in any one year. This element also provides for supplementation to the global budget when sites have an unprecedented use of staff absence through illness. Proposals are currently being developed for the allocation of resources to address risk issues associated with student transience.
Conclusion
In summary, the resource flexibility for Partnerships 21 sites integrates the key components of financial, human and physical resources. It provides flexible linkages between the strategic directions and objectives of the Partnerships Plan and annual operating plans which guides the delivery of quality earning for all children and students.
_____________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Mr Jim Davies is a superintendent on the Partnerships 21 local Management Taskforce. His work is focused on the provision and use of resources, the development of shared service centres, particularly in the preschool sector, and local school management implementation with secondary schools. Jim commenced his teaching career as a teacher of agriculture in rural South Australia. After accepting his first leadership position, he expanded his curriculum expertise to include health education and science. He subsequently gained a scholarship to complete a master's degree in Agricultural Education at Ohio State University. Jim then became Deputy Principal (Agriculture) at South Australia's only special interest agricultural high school. He has since been principal at Port Lincoln High School and, for the last seven years, principal at Hallett Cove School, an R-12 school of 1400 students. Jim was a participant in the Korea Foundation's intensive study program in 1998 and has been a member of the Asia Education State Advisory Committee since then.
Ms Terry Sizer is a superintendent on the Partnerships 21 Local Management Taskforce. She has been a member of the Country Issues and the Human Resources implementation groups and currently has a liaison role with Corporate Services. Terry began her career in education as a teacher of mathematics and physics, and became a consultant in Reception-Year 12 Mathematics for the Northern Region of South Australia. With mathematics curriculum development as a focus, she then became involved in SSABSA (Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia) and with PASMEP (Philipines, AustScience and Mathematics Education Project). Terry has held a range of leadership positions in the MNSEC Cluster (Mid North Secondary Education Cooperative), which is a group of six schools with secondary enrolments that operate cooperatively to deliver a range of educational services to their students. She has been principal of Booleroo Centre High School and district superintendent for the Pirie District.
Mr Trevor Rogers was seconded from his position as principal of Murray Bridge High School to be a superintendent with the Partnerships 21 Local Management Taskforce. Murray Bridge High School has 850 students, 40% of whom receive School Card support. Prior to this, Trevor worked in various city and country high schools as assistant principal, deputy principal, and principal. In the Partnerships 21 Taskforce, he has a liaison role with the Human Resources Directorate, helping to develop its changing role in facilitating the increasing flexibilities in resource management available under Partnerships 21. He is also working with Debbie Graham to coordinate the numerous training and development programs offered both to sites entering Partnerships 21, and to sites in the first uptake of local management in South Australia.
|
|
| | |
