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.