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.