Devolution of Decision-making Authority in the Government School System of Western Australia

On behalf of the Ministerial Independent Assessment Group on Devolution, I am pleased to present this report. In the space of a little over 12 months, the Group got to grips with most of the issues.

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

That the school council is responsible for the exercise of its powers: .. i) to the school community for annual reporting on the school's performance in relation to the school's development plan; .. ii) to the Director General of Education for the performance and performance of the school as indicated in the school development plan; and . iii) School audit units for the effectiveness of the board. To use this option, the principal would need the prior approval of the school board, and the school board would need to seek and obtain the approval of the Director General of Education. iii).

Devolution: A Brief History

OVERVIEW
THE 147 YEARS OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOLING
THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
THE RE-EMERGENCE OF DECENTRALISATION

It was clear that the central committee could not survive the parliamentary impatience with the further transfer of the administration of public education to an external body. By the turn of the century, Western Australia had acquired a centralized and efficient system of public instruction.

1.5 1987-1993: A BRIEF RETROSPECTIVE

THE 1986 REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION PORTFOLIO
BETTER SCHOOLS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA (1987)
THE 1993 REVIEW OF THE PORTFOLIO

Main Issues
Other Issues
The Report's Comments on the Ministry of Education

THE McCARREY COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PUBLIC SECTOR FINANCES (1993)
THE MINISTERIAL INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT GROUP

A Review Officer was appointed to the post, working in consultation with senior officials of the Department. A second report of the Functional Review Committee A Review of State School Administration in Western Australia was completed on 4 December 1986.

Devolution: What The Term Currently Means

OVERVIEW
THE PROBLEMATIC NATURE OF THE TERM ITSELF
THE KARMEL REPORT (1973)
CORPORATE MANAGERIALISM
EDUCATION AS A MARKET
IMPROVEMENT THROUGH MICRO-ECONOMIC REFORM
OVERVIEW
DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF RESPONSIVENESS

The Karmel Report
The Functional Review Committee
The Vickery Report
The Free Market Approach
The Micro-economic Reform Approach

THE SCHOOL VIEW
A CENTRAL OFFICE VIEW

Responsiveness in the system should be improved by closer integration of the bureaucracy with the government. The Vickery report was clearly critical of the "what" of responsiveness in the state's school system.

Outcomes and Deliberations

OVERVIEW AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The submissions received clearly show that people are concerned about the prospect of more changes. The proposals for further devolution present the prospect of even greater change, which we understand will be weighed against the sometimes unhappy experiences people have had over the past seven years. We set out to ensure that all our proposals were assessed against their likelihood of improving learning outcomes for children, before drawing up our recommendations.

PREAMBLE

There is a strong belief that change over the last decade has not always been adequately supported and in the minds of many, change has not been convincingly linked to improved learning. Schools will only seek the greater flexibility provided in some of our recommendations if those at local level – members of the school community – are ready, willing and able to use the flexibility offered. This theme is evident in our first five recommendations, designed to ensure that the decision to change always has strong local support.

SOME BASIC FEATURES OF DECISION MAKING

Individual Versus Group Decisions
Routine Versus Deliberative Decisions

In a new school, matters are discussed which in other schools are decided through fixed routines. Conversely, long-standing routines (for example, a school's discipline policy) sometimes need to be taken off "automatically" and subjected to in-depth deliberative review. In general, it can be difficult to introduce changes in areas that are regulated by long-standing routines.

OTHER GENERAL FEATURES OF DECISION MAKING

LOOKING AT DECISION MAKING IN GREATER DETAIL
MAIN AREAS OF DECISION MAKING AND THE KEY DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE

Curriculum Decisions
Work Organisation
Performance Improvement and Accountability
School Staffing
School Finances

WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEY DECISIONS?
WHAT DISCRETION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE?

Discretion in the Type of Decision
Discretion in How Decisions are Made

TO WHOM SHOULD THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE BE ACCOUNTABLE?
SHOULD A DECISION BE ABLE TO BE OVERTURNED?
HOW DOES A SCHOOL CHANGE AND IMPROVE?

Micro-improvement: Reflection and Internal Review
Choosing to Change
Supporting Change

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL COUNCILS AND BOARDS
That, subject to

Routines become embedded in the habits of individuals, the ethos of the subject and the culture of the school ("Why change things? We've always done it this way"). Authority to make decisions should be assigned according to the extent of the person's or group's overall management domain. Flexibility can only be fully understood in relation to the way people respond to the discretion available to them.

Curriculum

DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

BACKGROUND

TEACHERS' CURRICULUM RESPONSIBILITIES

Some Fundamentals
The Current Arrangements
What Kind of Framework Might be Better?

A teacher might say "I taught the content of the curriculum using the recommended processes, so the reasons for the children's performance must logically be due to the curriculum". This is tantamount to saying that the curriculum developers must be held accountable (at least in part) for the children's performance. We believe that the way forward is to give teachers clear responsibility for children's performance, including greater control over curriculum processes.

THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S CURRICULUM RESPONSIBILITIES

The Legislative Base for the Curriculum
The Architecture of the Central Framework
Checks and Balances in the Preparation of the Framework

The creation of the framework should be understood as a distillation of current curriculum goals. The preparation of the system's first curriculum framework (and possible subsequent revisions in future years) will be a complex consultative process, with the Director General responsible for the final decision. The Director General must be responsible to the Minister of Education for the preparation of the curriculum framework in accordance with the requirements of the (amended) Act.

THE PRINCIPAL'S RESPONSIBILITIES

Accountability

We believe that the director-general's powers and responsibilities in relation to the proposed curriculum framework should be clarified either in the Education Act or the provisions of the Act (regulation 36, subsection 2, must be reformulated in the light of our arguments and recommendations). To put it another way, if each school's curriculum is to align with the system's curriculum requirements, school leaders and the CEO must speak the same language. A headteacher is responsible for ensuring that the learning programs delivered by teachers are consistent with the requirements of the curriculum framework and the children's current performance.

WHAT SUPPORT WILL PRINCIPALS NEED?

A principal should be prepared to present such accounts both to the school council (or board) and to any senior official appointed by the director-general or the minister for education. This forms the basis for supervision and performance management of teachers and reporting of the school's performance to the school council or the board and the director general. Ultimately, the Director-General must be able to report to the Minister on how well school leaders are achieving in accordance with the requirements of the Framework in the light of performance information provided by internal and external evaluation processes.

SUPPORT FOR TEACHERS

The Director-General will have access to a range of advice on the extent to which principals are likely to have (or experience) difficulties in meeting the requirements of the Framework. This strongly suggests the Department of Education's ability to produce further assessment materials to support the recommendations of this chapter. That the Director General and principals jointly ensure that each teacher: .. i) receives professional development to enable him or her to plan and implement educational programs that are consistent with the requirements of the school and the Curriculum Framework; .. ii) have access to high quality, relevant syllabus and other support materials to support an outcomes-based approach to learning; and . iii) have ready access to timely and relevant information about curriculum resources and curriculum planning.

DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

BACKGROUND

It seems they don't want a new and different set of microcontrollers, but a set of basic principles from which they can work themselves to determine the detail.

WHAT RESOURCES ARE PROVIDED TO A SCHOOL?

The logic of the School Development Plans, which have been put in place over the last five years, is that (whatever they are) they are meant to be a blueprint for schools to turn resources into better learning. The problem we see is that the system has not yet been able to incorporate this principle into its resource usage guidelines.

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE AND STAFF PROFILE

The problem we see is that the system has not yet been able to incorporate this principle into its resource usage guidelines. iii) the director's accountability to the General Director of Education and the School Council (or Board) for creating an appropriate organizational structure and staff profile, demonstrated by the quality of educational results, as reported in the school's development plan; . iv) the director's decisions can be canceled by the General Director only if they are not in accordance with (ii) above.

ALLOCATING STUDENT AND TEACHER TIME TO ACHIEVE OUTCOMES

However, our recommendation also gives the school's staff, through the principal, greater authority over the way in which learning time and teaching time are matched, through the size and composition of groupings, in pursuit of the learning outcomes of the school's development. level.

That

Performance Improvement and Accountability

DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
BACKGROUND
THE CLASSROOM

State Standards for Reports to Parents
Teachers' Accountability for Improving the Learning Outcomes of Students
Is the Regulatory Framework Appropriate?

That

THE SCHOOL

Each principal is required to account for the performance of the school to the school decision-making group through the school development plan. It basically says that a principal is accountable for the school's performance to the school's decision-making group through the school development plan. We concluded that the greatest strength of the current arrangements is the school development and accountability policy itself.

Role Definition of Superintendents

Such short-term planning is not in line with the reality of the time required for change and improvement in schools. We believe that this would make it clear that principals and supervisors are dealing with one and the same process - an internal review. ii) Unambiguously defining the relationship of accountability and performance improvement between district superintendents and principals in terms of performance management. As for teachers, we believe that principals are well placed to advise the CEO on an appropriate performance management framework. i) a performance management system for principals should be introduced; .. ii) the system is developed by the general director after consultation with principals and supervisors; . iii) performance management functions for principals include their accountability to the District Superintendent for the quality and results of internal school review; improving the performance of principals; and assessment and authentication of their performance; . iv) the District Superintendent is responsible to the Director General for the implementation of the performance management system for each school principal; and . v) the current regulatory framework governing the effectiveness and conduct of principals is reviewed by the Education Act Review Project in the light of sections i-iv of this recommendation.

External review

THE SYSTEM

Final Responsibility
Reporting Achievements Through Performance Indicators
Performance Examinations by the Auditor General
The System's Accountability and Planning for Improvement

BACKGROUND

Local Selection: The Reasons for Recommending in 1986
Local Selection: The Reasons for Rejecting in 1987

THE CURRENT CLIMATE OF OPINION
BACKGROUND TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Auditor General's opinion for the larger of the two programs - which concerned the operation of government schools - was based on information gathered from:. Article 7C of the Education Act, which allows action on the grounds of misconduct, is also important. Decentralized staffing was rejected by the then minister before the official publication of the Better Schools report.

Merit Selection

The central staffing process begins with the advertising of the most senior promotional positions in February of the year before successful candidates take up their positions. Where vacancies for promotional posts still exist after disposal of transfer applications, they are finalized through centrally controlled merit selection and appeal procedures. Vacancies remaining at the end of the year, after as many permanent staff preferences have been accommodated (allowing for forced transfers), are filled by graduates and temporary staff.

The Case for Greater Local Input

The Assumptions
FILLING VACANCIES FOR PRINCIPAL AND OTHER PROMOTIONAL POSITIONS
VACANCIES FOR GENERAL TEACHING STAFF
SUPPORT FOR SELECTION PROCESSES
RECOMMENDATION 22

BACKGROUND
CURRENT TRENDS
FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Each recommendation provides different levels of local involvement in the choice of selection criteria and selection panel. Specific comments related to the need for improvement, both at school and central level, of the selection process. Access to the two-line budgeting option requires the approval of the School Board (or School Board) and then the Director General of Education.

INDEX A

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GROUP'S ISSUES PAPER

ORGANISATIONS

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE GROUP'S ISSUES PAPER

North Morley Primary School P & C Assn North Perth Primary School P & C Assn North Woodvale Primary School. Rossmoyne Senior High School Salmon Gums Shkolla fillore Samson Primary School P & C Assn Shelley Primary School. Warwick Senior School P & C Assn Wattle Grove Primary School P & C Stafi i shkollës fillore Assn Wattle Grove.

INDIVIDUALS

LIST OF ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED