Federal School Reward Payments Distort Equitable Learning Opportunities

Research by Professor Max Angus and Harriet Olney of Edith Cowan University has shown that the Federal Government's reward payments to schools for literacy and numeracy are perverting their intended purpose. The reward payments have encouraged state governments to focus their efforts on students who are just below cut-off points instead of on students who are well below cut-off points. Instead of the most needy students receiving additional attention, state governments have focused on students who are most likely to help state governments reach performance targets required to receive reward payments from the Federal government.

For example, the research found that 25% of the primary schools in the literacy and numeracy National Partnership reported no students below the minimum standards in 2009 NAPLAN results. At the same time, many primary schools with large proportions of students below minimum standards were not included in the national partnership. This was unlike the low-SES National Partnership where payments were not based on a reward structure.

The research also found that the literacy and numeracy National Partnership undermined the professionalism of teachers. Instead of teachers and principals being involved in the development of policy frameworks in their schools, they were dictated as to how to teach literacy and numeracy to their students. This raises questions about the Federal Government's confidence in teacher training programs. The result was that the program failed to take into account of the local needs of schools and missed an opportunity to build the capacity of teachers.

Unfortunately the Federal Education Minister Peter Garrett has not learnt from the mistakes in the US and UK public education systems where reward payments and high stakes testing have resulted in similar outcomes. Education jurisdictions focus their efforts on the students most likely to meet artificial performance measures instead of the students most in need.

Cuts to NSW Public School Teachers' Professional Learning

On Monday 28th November the NSW Director-General of Education Michele Bruniges announced to teachers that she would be cutting their professional learning opportunities to help fund a 0.5% pay increase. Currently, schools are funded $700 per teacher to cover the costs of professional development courses. Michele wants to cut this to $190 per teacher so that teachers can have a pay increase less than inflation.

To offset this loss of funding teachers will be expected to participate in courses in their own time. You can only imagine the quality of these courses when there is so little money available to fund them.

Both the NSW Education Minister Adrian Picolli and Federal Education Minister Peter Garrett have proclaimed the centrality of teacher quality to student learning outcomes. Yet it seems this is the first thing to be undermined in salary negotiations by government.

The biggest losers in this cutback will be rural public schools. Teachers in rural schools have to travel long distances and stay over night to attend training opportunities in larger centres. They will now no longer be able to do so without the funding.

The long term consequence of this will be that teachers will not be able to maintain their accreditation with the NSW Institute of Teachers. Teachers have to participate in 50 hours of courses accredited by the Institute to be able to maintain their accreditation to teach. These courses are the most expensive because of the rigourous quality control involved in developing accredited courses. Without the funding to attend these courses the NSW Department of Education will find thousands of its teachers each year losing their accreditation to teach.

The Independent Review into the NSW School Autonomy Trial

The Independent Review of the the School Based Management Pilot by ARTD Consultants has been acclaimed by government ministers and the media as evidence for the need to devolve centralised administrative responsibilities to public school principals. It is typically the sort of review whose findings were predetermined. Its methodology was flawed and promotes a range of policies that will end the democratic nature of NSW public education, undermine the curriculum guarantee in public schools and harm equity and special education programs. The public reaction to the report demonstrates the paucity of critical insight by both the Australian education policy community and the media. For example, Samantha Maiden in The Sunday Telegraph claimed that "studies by the OECD and a trial of the program in 47 NSW schools suggest that when autonomy and accountability are combined, student performance and attendance improve." It is clear that Samantha did not read the review into the 47 school trial as the OECD actually makes the opposite claim while the review was based wholly on opinion surveys. Not surprisingly, in the same article Federal Education Minister Peter Garrett claimed the trial validated his attempts at imposing school devolution on public school communities.

Calling the review an 'Independent Public Review' should have alerted the media to it being neither independent nor representative of the public (the word 'independent' is used 22 times in the text of the report). The findings of the review are based on the opinions of 45 principals and 7 P&C members who were selected by the principals of their schools. These principals elected to participate in the trial thus have an interest in providing positive opinions. Purely on the basis of these opinions the review claims that the school devolution trial led to improvements in literacy, numeracy, HSC results, learning outcomes, student welfare, the quality of teaching, staff development and opportunities and the management of schools. Not one piece of 'independent' data was used for the review. It does not use data from student test results or welfare statistics, and there were no interviews with independent parents, let alone students, teachers and stakeholders such as the Aboriginal Educational Consultative Group.

Examples of claims made about the school devolution trial were that:

• greater staffing flexibility was just as important as increased school funding to improve student learning;
• principal control of the staffing mix is the most important factor in improving student learning outcomes;
• the majority of school staff were supportive of the loss of centralised staffing;
• staff were happier and more engaged;
• school autonomy increased the capacity of teachers to deliver the curriculum (which is centrally developed);
• more could be done in schools for less cost;
• parents were consulted about local school decision making.

All of this was determined based on the opinions of principals in a two year trial involving 47 schools (out of a total of 2200). 

It is obvious that the review was a sales pitch for school devolution when principals were quoted as saying it led to "incredible growth in student learning outcomes" (p. 11) and "get this right and nothing else matters" (p. 21). On page 15 of the review it quotes principals who said "Staff morale is high" and "Happier and engaged staff" while not one teacher nor aide was interviewed by the review. 

Ironically, all of these claims fly in the face of the OECD research that was reported in the review (p. 2). It found no relationship between school autonomy over resources and staffing, and student performance. Instead, it found that school autonomy over curriculum and reporting led to greater student performance. Unfortunately, these are being centralised by the Federal Government.

The basic assumption of school autonomy is that through interview procedures, schools will be able to filter out poor quality teachers. Current NSW transfer procedures require principals to sign off on the efficiency of a teacher before they can apply for a transfer. It does not say much for the professionalism of principals if they cannot be trusted to determine if a teacher is efficient. Job interviews are no more valid than supervisor assessments (Schmidt & Hunter, Psychological Bulletin, 124, 2008) yet they create another administrative burden on schools distracting them from their core function of providing quality learning.

Two major confounds admitted by the review in the trial were temporary funding boosts gained from 'top-up' funding and National Partnerships funding. Both of these provided short-term increases to school staffing numbers. The trial has not extended beyond these funding boosts to test if they distorted principal's opinions of school devolution. It claims that 34% of principals credited increased flexibility over increased funding as the benefit of the trial. Not even a majority could see the benefit of the trial even  while they were distracted by temporary funding boosts.

What the review did make clear was that school devolution creates an additional administrative burden on schools. This required many schools to employ a 'business administrator', extra administrative staff or less time for principals to act as educational leaders. It is astonishing that the review does not question the assumption of principals that current systems of accountability are suffice for greater principal autonomy. To efficiently ensure schools principals are meeting their legal and financial duties it is obvious they will have to be placed on performance contracts.

Three dangers of school devolution shown by the trial are the loss of democratic control over public schools, the loss of the curriculum guarantee in every public school, and the loss of accountability over the spending of equity and special education funding. Currently, NSW public schools are accountable through the Department of Education to the NSW parliament. School autonomy will severe this control as principals will be expected to be 'heroic' independent leaders in their schools while it is impossible for parliament to oversee 2200 independent public schools.

Through school autonomy principals will be able to abolish positions such as assistant principals and head teachers to use the savings for other programs. This means that parents will not be able to have any confidence that they can send their child to their local public school knowing that every subject will be taught and supervised by teachers expert in their own subjects.

Finally, school autonomy will allow schools to have control over how and when they spend equity and special education money. For example, schools will be allowed to delay spending special education money to later years to the detriment of students in the current year. As well, there will be no accountability as to how money set aside for Aboriginal and ESL students will be spent.

It is clear that principal 'autonomy' and school devolution are the latest politically-motivated solution for the 'crisis' in schools. Unfortunately, they have no evidentiary basis and will harm the provision of quality and equity in NSW public schools.

Local Schools, Local Decisions

Recently the NSW Department of Education and Communities released its interim report into its Local Schools, Local Decisions (LSLD) policy consultation. LSLD is the NSW Coalition Government’s version of the previous government’s ‘Boston Consulting Paper’ aimed at cutting school budgets. This is demonstrated by the Department attempting to use the policy to cover the cost of teachers salaries above 2.5%. To fund an increase of 1% in teacher salaries for two years, the government would need to find a saving of $180 million. The only way this could be possible through a policy like LSLD would be for the closure and amalgamation of small schools, a reversal of class size reductions in K-2 and the abolition of hundreds of teaching positions. The Department has since removed LSLD from its salary offer but the policy remains in place.

Before the state election Barry O’Farrell was critical of the Department’s ‘Boston Consulting Paper’ which aimed at slashing $750 million of recurrent funding from public education through school closures and amalgamations, increases in class sizes and the abolition of thousands of teaching positions. Unfortunately, Barry O’Farrell’s promise to not cut schools budgets seems as reliable as his promise not to privatise electricity. The state government has already cut the Department’s budget by 1.5% ($150 million) while being able to give the poker machine industry a $300 million tax break.

The Boston Consulting Paper gave an insight into how governments can implement cost cutting measures whilst minimising public opposition. It is simply to dress up cost savings as ‘flexibility’ and delay budget cuts to a future date. The Boston Consulting Paper reported that the 47 Schools Trial could be used to make tens of millions of dollars of savings by first allowing principals to keep savings within their schools to build support for the policy. Once the policy is rolled out state-wide all school-based savings would be taken back by treasury. This is exactly what is now happening in the schools involved in the trial.

After students, the biggest losers form LSLD will be principals. The shifting of financial, OHS, staff entitlement and maintenance responsibilities onto principals will drown them in administrative workload and require strict accountability. The only rational way to achieve these goals will be to eventually place principals onto performance contracts and end their roles as educational leaders. In the United States after years of school autonomy, principals are now being replaced by business managers who have the desired skills in administering corporations.

The Local Schools, Local Decisions Interim Report

Staff in our Schools - p. 10

The report says that changes to the staffing of schools should not disadvantage any students. As there is no new money, any change to the staffing mix of schools can only result in the disadvantage of some students. For example, a school may choose to cash in an assistant principal to reduce class sizes, but this will strip the benefits of an experienced teacher from the school.

The first emerging issue it identifies is to provide greater flexibility in the appointment of staff. In the last staffing operation for classroom teachers 10% of positions were filled by services transfers, 2% by incentive transfers and 17% by nominated transfers. 60% of positions were filled by the suite of options. The reality is that the only way to create more flexibility (local selection) would be to abolish service transfers. That would leave many schools in rural NSW unable to attract new staff without any transfer incentive. Incentive and service transfers are an efficient way for government to guarantee a qualified teacher in front of every class. The only alternative is to offer teachers very expensive cash incentives that could be better spent on equity programs.

The second emerging issue suggests teacher tenure be ‘explored’. This means that teachers could lose their permanency. Teacher permanency is the one attractive feature of our low-payed profession compared to other industries. Without it we would definitely be unable to retain quality teachers, especially in subjects such as mathematics and science. The Primary Principals Association position paper on LSLD provides an example of how this could work in practice. The PPA paper suggests that every second vacancy is filled by local selection, including when a nearby teacher is nominated for a transfer. The PPA paper does not explain what would happen to the teacher or principal who is then without a position. As there is no longer a public service ‘unattached list’, they may well become redundant.

Appendix

In the appendix a number of example quotes from the consultation are reprinted. One suggests that schools employ bursars to manage school finances by reducing executive or teaching staff in the school. In other words, the ‘benefits’ of local decision making come at the expense of the teaching and welfare capacity within a school. 

LSLD will strip funding from public schools, undermine the attractiveness of teaching and harm the equitable outcomes of children in public schools. By attempting to fund teacher salary increases through Local Schools, Local Decisions, it is clear that the intention of the policy is to act as a cost-saving measure, not an equity program.

The Importance of Early Childhood

It is not a new claim that a person's experiences during early childhood have an ongoing effect during their lives. John Locke (1632-1704) argued that the mind is a 'blank slate' on which life's experiences shapes a person's nature. Developmental psychologists such as Freud, Piaget, Erikson and  Kohlberg have all pointed to critical developmental transitions in early childhood that permanently direct the course of a person's behaviours. To ensure children develop into citizens capable of contributing and participating in modern industrial societies, governments have developed a range of services to ensure each child has access to experiences that maximise her cognitive, social and moral development.

Both animal studies and human neuroscience have demonstrated that the quality of the environment has a direct effect on brain development. Rats raised non-stimulating cages have smaller brain weights and perform poorly on maze tasks. Children raised in low-SES families come to school with below average language skills, while recent neurocognitve research provides evidence that childhood poverty has a negative effect on intelligence. Research from psychology, neuroscience and the social sciences point to three main effects of poverty on the developing child: below average skills necessary for schooling, differences in brain development and poorer social skills. The result is that many of these children are well behind their middle-SES peers in school readiness, but also school capability.

An obvious intervention to ensure low-SES children are afforded the opportunity to succeed in life is public preschools. Both Western Australia and the ACT offer universal public preschools with 90% of children participating. Preschools teach children essential skills such as how to use a book, hold a pencil and listen to instructions as part of a class. As well, the rich learning environment supports brain development through encouraging richer synaptic connections within the brain. Probably even more critically, preschools can identify medical and developmental problems at an early age for prompt intervention before formal schooling.

The Sydney Morning Herald recently reprinted a speech by  Professor Tony Vinson to the NSW Primary Principals Association regarding NSW public preschools. He has investigated the connection between family poverty and later juvenile criminal behaviours. His later research into education highlighted the importance of providing low-SES children with early experiences such as public preschools to ameliorate developmental disadvantages. 

Vinson has recently surveyed principals of public preschools in response to the O'Farrell Government's introduction of preschool fees. He found that many principals feared that the fees would exclude the most disadvantaged children from accessing preschool places. Vinson argued that the provision of public preschools are essential to ensure that a child's low-SES status does not trap them into a life of poverty, crime and the resulting costs to society.

The Australian has reported on research that places the critical period of a child's life before preschool age to birth up to three years of age. This makes sense from a developmental neuroscience perspective as it is these years in which the most important post-natal structural changes occur in the brain.

If Australia is ever going to come close to ending inter-generational poverty, governments must invest in a broad range of intervention services for children in low-SES families. We are best placed to do this being the richest per-capita nation in the world.

Unfortunately the O'Farrell Government's introduction of fees for public preschools will be a backward step in addressing poverty in NSW and harm the life opportunities of many children.

Federal Schools Funding and Productivity

The Nous Group has written a report for the Review of Funding for Schooling outlining what it sees as the challenges and opportunities facing Australian schools. It discusses the impact of residualisation of public schools on student performance as measured by PISA tests. In comparison to other OECD nations, the impact of school disadvantage on student performance is worst in Australia. The result is an overall decline in literacy and numeracy scores. The Nous paper raises this issue as both an equity and an economic concern.

The current federal government formula for funding schools is reducing Australia's productivity growth and its international competitiveness. The funding of private schools is concentrating high performing middle-SES students into private schools. The evidence shows that these schools are not "value-adding" to these students' performances thus the public funding is wasted. But on the other hand, the resulting residualisation of low-SES students in public schools is lowering their performance as they miss out on the benefits of mixing with more-able peers. The current federal government's schools funding model is causing an overall lowering of school performance on PISA measures. The result for a high-skilled economy such as Australia is a decline in productivity growth and the creation of a class of citizens who do not have the required knowledge and skills to participate in the modern workplace.

The Nous paper makes it clear that the current federal funding model is the cause of a generation of lost productivity, wasted public finances and the entrenchment of demographic disadvantage in Australian society. It would be a monumental failure of democratic policy making if either side of politics fails to address public policy that is harming economic growth and undermining the opportunities of its citizens.