The Case for Greater Local Input
RECOMMENDATION 22 RECOMMENDATION 22
9.3 CURRENT TRENDS
Before 1987, some schools had direct control of only one per cent of the total government funds used to operate them - almost all funding decisions were made centrally. The total amount available was distributed across about 100 purpose-specific cost centres, which in turn were controlled by senior officers in various divisions of the Department. Salaries costs were met automatically, as they are now. The overall effect was that a school's base funding (comprised of salaries) was "topped up" from a variety of central and regional cost centres during the course of the school year. The basis in some cases was per capita allocation and in others specific needs.The Education
94
Department operated a central supply facility from which schools requestioned their entitlement of books and equipment, with many items being included on a "free" list.
Newly-developed curriculum materials were also distributed automatically in this way.
This facility no longer exists: what was once a schools' entitlement to stationery and other everyday needs has been converted into untied "discretionary" dollars through the School Grant.
Accounting procedures were mainly manual, using multi-column cashbooks or card systems for recording transactions. Fewer than 50 of the larger secondary schools had a registrar. All other schools depended on clerical assistants or teaching staff for administrative support. The accounting systems in schools have been considerably upgraded, particularly in secondary schools, which have been supplied with administrative computing systems and the MAZE accounting software.
Salaries and certain other recurrent expenditure - for example, utilities charges (for most schools) and the bulk of maintenance costs - are still processed centrally, and in most respects are not aggregated against the operating costs of a school.
Schools, as they did before 1987, derive revenue from a variety of sources other than the government, including fees and charges (within strict limits set by the Education Department), fundraising, parent and community contributions, canteens and the hiring of facilities. Some schools use funds raised in these ways to buy additional staff time for specialised services.
Certain schools which meet the criteria receive additional funding through the Commonwealth's equity program. Known in the long-standing vernacular as "PSP"
and/or "PCAP", this funding provides a significant boost to these schools' discretionary powers. Because the funding source is the Commonwealth's equity program, schools have to meet certain Commonwealth submission and accountability requirements.
Some submissions have drawn our attention to the logic of "rolling" these funds in with the State's School Grant. In this way, it has been argued, the Commonwealth funds could be expended through the State's school planning and accountability policies. Not only are these more rigorous processes, but there would also be a significant saving in administration at the school and other levels. While we are sympathetic to these arguments and commend them for further consideration, we believe we are not sufficiently familiar with the complexities of Commonwealth-State arrangements in the area to make a recommendation. However, there is logic in the view that individual school matters are better decided at the school level.
The School Grant
This is the vehicle used by the Education Department to convey government funds to individual schools. From a small base in 1987, the size of each school's grant of untied funding has increased steadily. The School Grant process has involved the Department moving systematically through the central cost centres which hold funds destined for school-based expenditure. Cost centres are examined critically from a devolutionary perspective. The basic question is: could the funds in this cost centre be more efficiently and effectively expended at the local level and therefore incorporated in the School Grant? If the answer is "yes", there then begins a lengthy deliberative process, involving consultation with schools, to ensure that the formula developed to divide this particular
"cake" annually is fair and equitable.
This is a brief description of the methodical, time-consuming process which has delivered the result which meets with such approval from schools. New elements are added to the School Grant each year. For example, the new elements in the 1993 Grants to schools were:
• curriculum materials for graduate teachers;
• direct payments for minor works;
• consumab es for gardeners and handypersons;
• spare parts and accessories for cleaners;
• repair and replacement allowances;
• provisions for the professional development of Aboriginal Education Workers; and
• allowances associated with the optional full-time program for five year olds, in participating schools.
At present, volunteer schools are participating in the Utilities Management Program, intended to devolve responsibility for the management of energy, water and telecommunications use by schools. An incentive for the 160 participating schools is access to any savings due to better management to use in other areas of the school.
Schools not participating in this program still have their utilities costs paid centrally.
What is perhaps most impressive - admittedly with the benefit of hindsight - about the total list of items included in the School Grant since 1987 is that so many apparently trivial matters were once administered centrally and separately.
In total, over $40 million ($42.4 million in 1993) is currently distributed to schools in this fashion. The principal determinant of the amount each school is allocated is the number of students enrolled at the school. The allocation actually has two components: one for general operating costs and the other called the "School Development Grant". The latter is subdivided into contingencies and staffing (a suggested allocation of funds for salaries). While most schools use their "staffing" allocation for teacher relief, it is possible to convert it to contingency dollars.
School Maintenance and Capital Works
Submissions have indicated that while many schools approve generally of the moves over the past four years to devolve funds for local minor works, they are wary of further moves in this area. Concerns arise from the realisation of the magnitude and complexities of capital works and maintenance programs, and the distance between such activities and the central business of schools, which is teaching and learning.
While we have detected a request from some principals for further devolution of maintenance and minor capital works funding, there is also a strong note of caution.
Some principals do not see a need for continuing district office involvement in decision making for devolved minor works funds. This is a not a matter about which we have had sufficient information to enable a definitive recommendation to be made. We would, however, raise it as a matter for further investigation by the Education Department.
Some of the rhetoric about devolution has included the proposition that schools will be required to maintain their premises and equipment. The submissions indicate that this has concerned some school communities. Understandably, these submissions have tended to come from communities associated with older rather than newer schools. In
96
our view, schools in general would like to see responsibilities for capital works and maintenance funding clearly specified. There are concerns about the literal meaning of terms used by the Education Department when defining central responsibilities for
"programmed maintenance" and "faults and repairs" At the margins there are concerns that while the "fixed items" (e.g. stoves, kilns and band saws) are a central responsibility, personal computers, which may not literally be "fixed", can become expensive propositions for schools to repair or replace.
The following recommendation has been framed to ensure that some of the best features of the current arrangments are preserved as part of the future directions in school finances.
RECOMMENDATION 24
That, in respect to the current trend in the devolution of school finances, the process of allocating greater decision-making authority to schools be continued, provided that:
i) it enables schools to use the money to greater educational effect;
ii) schools be allowed to carry funds forward to the next year, in accord with the requirements of an endorsed school development plan;
iii) programmed maintenance, faults and repairs and capital works, remain central responsibilities, under the authority of the Director-General; and
iv) adequate support and resources are allocated to schools to enable them to take up the additional responsibilities without detriment to the educational programs of students.