Partnerships 21 Inquiry

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
11 October 2000

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2000 Spring Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

I. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to investigate and report on the Partnerships 21 scheme and, in particular, to identify-

(b) differences in the level of funding between Partnerships 21 and non-Partnerships 21 schools;

II. That standing order 389 be suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

III. That this Council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it thinks fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the Council.

IV. That standing order 396 be suspended as to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

The terms of reference of the proposed select committee are fairly similar to those of the Labor Party. I have not tried to make the terms of reference so extensive in particular detail but, in fact, term of reference (d) refers to `any other related matter', which does, indeed, allow us to look at all things which are relevant to Partnerships 21.

From the beginning I have said that some aspects of Partnerships 21 are, indeed, very positive and some are of concern. Unfortunately, I found myself having to be constantly critical, but not about just Partnerships 21. My criticism has been more about the process of implementation carried out by this government. The Australian Democrats support greater school council and parent participation in public schooling. I have been a member of school councils, both as a teacher representative and also as a parent representative, over a number of years. I also note that, indeed, South Australian school councils have always enjoyed a very high level of parent participation in schooling-far more than Victoria, for instance, which the government sought to model us on: Victorian parents have virtually no say at all. South Australia has a very long history of principals having a great deal of freedom and progressively, since that freedom of authority document of the early 1970s, school councils also have had an increasing say. Indeed, I felt, as a member of a school council, that we were in a position to influence all things-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, I said as a parent as well. If the honourable member had been listening when I spoke earlier, I said in both capacities. We are concerned about growing evidence that the Partnerships 21 model has more to do with the government's ideology than it has to do with school flexibility and student benefit. On 10 November last year, I moved a motion to express concern about the pressure being placed on school councils and school communities to enter Partnerships 21 rapidly, without a chance to properly assess the impact on their schools in both the long and the short term-and I think that the long-term impact is the more significant one. As part of that motion, I also called for an inquiry to explore concerns over how global budget allocations were to be made. So, 12 months ago I was already raising the sorts of concerns that now, unfortunately, have come to pass.

At every opportunity the Democrats have emphasised that the education of our children is an important resource for the future. It is not a budget line to be cut back and it is not a public asset to be privatised. However, almost 12 months later, it seems that my concerns have been confirmed. There is now increasing reason to believe that the rush into Partnerships 21 has caught both schools and the department unprepared-in fact, the very speed at which things were moving was political. This was highlighted by the release of a DETE document last month that revealed a department trying to patch up problems with Partnerships 21 on the run.

There are also serious doubts about the freedom of schools to join or leave Partnerships 21-in fact, there is no mechanism for schools to leave Partnerships 21 if they find it unsatisfactory. If anything, the state government has become more blatant about its attempt to get schools to join the scheme and more scathing in its personal attacks on those who would critique the scheme.

From the outset, the minister has misrepresented the findings of the Cox report on which Partnerships 21 is based by claiming that the scheme improves educational outcomes. Yet almost 12 months after my warning there is still no clear evidence that Partnerships 21 will result in better educational outcomes for students.

My concerns about the minister's ideological view blinding him to the growing body of research that questions the supposed benefits of Partnerships 21 was confirmed just last week. In a statement to parliament, the minister presented the co-author of a book which detailed and advocated the privatisation of Victorian public schools as if he were an independent expert on Partnerships 21. In a ministerial statement, the minister quoted this person-a very strong advocate of the sort of model we have in South Australia-as justifying what was happening here in South Australia. Unfortunately, it seems that Minister Buckby believes him to be an independent expert; but perhaps other people will not.

Over the past 12 months, the state government has continued to ignore evidence of problems with Partnerships 21. Despite growing levels of concern raised by independent bodies and research, it has dismissed all criticism as being linked to an AEU wage claim.

Meanwhile, I do not think that Labor helps matters by turning Partnerships 21 into a political football. The Democrats support local school management and have looked at both sides of the Partnerships 21 argument. We are convinced that, for the sake of our children and the future of South Australia, it is time for a balanced view of Partnerships 21, and that a select committee inquiry will provide that balanced view.

In relation to the rush into Partnerships 21, it is worthwhile looking at a brief history. Partnerships 21 emerged from the Cox report that was commissioned into local school management. The government's interpretation and implementation of the findings of this report were first announced in a ministerial statement on 9 July 1999. The first round of schools were encouraged to opt for information and training within six weeks of the ministerial statement, and encouraged to sign a service agreement by 19 November 1999.

This gave school councils I think about four months (between hearing about the scheme and signing up) to assess the impact of P21 on their school and community. However, by November 1999 the Advertiser reported that about 33 per cent of schools had signed an agreement. This is a case of really using statistics to try to favour your argument, and it is reinforced if one looks at the Auditor-General's recent report.

The fact is that most of the schools that went in were small schools and preschools and, in terms of the percentage of students in the state system, the figure was significantly lower. At the time, I raised concerns about the possibility that many schools would receive increased financial responsibility but lose funding and financial flexibility. It was a concern that was confirmed in March 2000 when DETE gave out four contracts for cleaning suburban schools, which prevented P21 schools from getting their own competitive quotes.

This concern was confirmed again when DETE gave a commercially confidential contract for internet provision to Telstra, preventing P21 schools from getting their own local competitive quotes and service. This particularly hurt regional areas, and I had a number of people from country schools expressing concern. Over the following months, concerns also emerged from ethnic and special needs groups over the possibility that revenue guaranteed for certain purposes need not remain dedicated to that purpose within global budgets.

However, these concerns were steamrolled by the rush to get schools into Partnerships 21. The impact of this rush was highlighted again in September this year by DETE documents showing an ill-prepared department trying to patch up P21 problems on the run. This document highlighted the following areas of grave concern

· an admission that it takes two to three months to get guidance support for country students with disabilities;

· severe internal division within the Department of Education, Training and Employment due to the implementation of P21; and

· that global budgets for next year will not be finalised until the end of this month.

This last point is significant, because it highlights how little flexibility and freedom to plan schools have, when they have not received their funding information for next year. It shows a scheme which espouses greater school council and parent participation in public schooling but which has not backed up these virtues with practical implementation strategies.

However, despite all the above concerns, the Auditor-General's Report last week reported that over 386 schools had entered P21 and 45 more would by January 2001. In a little over a year, the state government has managed to get almost 50 per cent of schools into P21. It leaves one with the question: how did they do it so quickly? There are a couple of answers, and the first is bribes.

The second is pressure on principals and, finally, there is the improper behaviour of some principals themselves. On the matter of Partnerships 21 bribes, as early as November 1999 leaked Public Service documents revealed that, under Partnerships 21, money would be redirected to schools in country and marginal Liberal-held seats. Around that time, I was also aware that schools were told that they would receive up to $240 000 if they opted into P21, but that they must opt in quick or there is no guarantee the money would be available later.

As the months passed, more bribes to schools to enter P21 emerged, such as schoolcard gap payments, priority access to Pathways SA, and over $1 million in environmental grants. Over this period the number of stories grew of departmental employees and superintendents being called in by their superiors to explain why less than the department-set quota of schools had joined P21. In the past few months, I have been amazed at how blatant and brazen the minister has become over the pressure that the state government is putting on schools.

In August this year, the minister openly confessed that financial bribes were behind P21, when he noted in the Gawler paper that schools in the Gawler area not opting into P21 had missed out on $2.6 million. He also justified, in a release, the fact that environmental grants would only go to P21 schools on the basis that they were more community conscious. When I pointed out publicly that many non- P21 schools have high community involvement and would be insulted by such statements, the minister, in a twist of logic that I am still trying to fathom, accused me of insulting P21 schools.

I can only suppose that the minister's ideological blindness has stretched to deafness as well. I made the point that my own children have been through Belair Primary and that the third is still there. That school has had very long-term programs of environmental action. For close to two decades they have been going every year into Belair National Park and revegetating significant degraded areas. Because it was a non-P21 school, it could not apply for the environmental grants. But for anyone to suggest that that school did not have any community consciousness is just a nonsense.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It is a lie. This, however, is not the only personal attack I have received by calling for a carefully researched and properly examined model for local school management. Each time I have raised community concerns about the lack of research showing any educational benefits from P21, and the bribes for schools getting into P21 quickly, the government has sought to attack me, my office and my party, rather than address these concerns.

The one that most surprised me was a personal letter that I received from SASSO. I found it sufficiently insulting that I did not reply to it. I was quite happy to reply to a letter that concentrated on the issues, but the letter went well beyond that. I must say that I have never made any criticism of SASSO publicly before, although I have had some reservations about its behaviour.

But I am astonished, not that SASSO would have a view on P21 or might support P21, but I am surprised that an organisation that is supposed to represent all public schools would take a single side of the argument. Further, it has not said a word about the fact that schools are being bribed to go into Partnerships 21; that some state schools are being disadvantaged by the decision not to go in, not because of the merits or otherwise of P21 itself but simply by the decision not to go in.

Where is SASSO? Why is it not representing all public schools and saying to the minister, `We are prepared to support you on the merits of the argument of P21.' I do not have a problem with its doing that, but why does it stand by and allow the government to behave in a blatantly political and partial manner and treat schools differently on the basis of whether or not they do what the government wants politically? SASSO should not do that.

It concerns me that at this time the President of SASSO is also a senior employee of the Education Department. It seems to me that, although he is elected in a democratic fashion, when one has something that is so politically dangerous as this issue it would be very careful about that sort of thing. I must say that he, at least at a public level, I believe, has behaved in a balanced manner, in that I have not seen him involved in personal attacks. But I do think that the closeness of SASSO at this stage with a senior government employee does make it difficult when one has an issue of this nature.

What my attackers failed to realise is that I have had extensive experience as a teacher in South Australian public schools. I have been a school council member at public schools, including the school my children attended for many years. Further, a member of my staff responsible for researching my responses has a doctorate in education and education policy. I believe that these together mean that I am in some position to have an understanding of the issues, yet just last week in a ministerial statement the minister said:

I note too that yesterday the President of the South Australian Association of State School Organisations described the inquiry as 'a sign of desperation'. He went on to say that the call for an inquiry 'reflects the desperation of a recalcitrant union which is losing its battle against progress, and the cynical political opportunism of a headline-seeking minor party'.

Well, let us concentrate on the facts, shall we? Let us have a debate about the facts-Yes, Minister! I am not sure what I should be concerned about here, but I will try to concentrate on the issues.

By way of example, I note that, in his ministerial statement last week, the minister chose to quote Professor Brian Caldwell as a world authority to vouch for Partnerships 21. In his statement, Minister Buckby spoke of Professor Caldwell as if he was a totally independent expert. It is worth noting that Professor Caldwell, together with a former Victorian education minister, Don Hayward, co- authored a book entitled The Future of Schools: Lessons from the Reform of Public Education . Former Minister Hayward said:

We already had models of highly successful schools in the non-government or independent schools, which were attended by more than 30 per cent of Victorian school students. What we needed to do was to make all our schools independent. We needed to dismantle the system.

However, in discussion with some school principals, they urged that all schools should move toward autonomy at a slow, gradual, uniform pace. I saw many objections to this. . . if you are going to make a fundamental cultural change, you have to move quickly before those who have an interest in the status quo can organise their opposition.

I encourage all members to read this book, because it gives an understanding of not only what happened in Victoria but what has been happening in South Australia. The chief public servant involved in its implementation in Victoria was Geoff Spring, who was subsequently recruited to South Australia and is now the senior public servant in relation to education and the implementation of P21 in South Australia. What is needed is a proper inquiry, a truly independent inquiry to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the scheme. I say again-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: If you don't mind, otherwise you ask the government to set up an independent inquiry. On the government's present record, we know precisely what form that would take. I agree that select committees are not ideal, but when you look at the choices they must be better. What is needed is a proper inquiry, yet today Minister Buckby again ruled out support for such an inquiry even before debate on its merits has taken place.

His comments remind me of a similar pre-emptive statement made by the minister over a Democrats call for an inquiry into government services for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We can only hope that, like the ADHD inquiry, reasoned debate in parliament and pressure from some reasonable Liberal backbenchers will get the Minister to look past his ideology and towards the best interests of the children of our state.

What possible objection could there be to such an inquiry which, ultimately, would produce the best education outcomes for our children?

Independent research raises doubts about Partnerships 21. Given that the government seems more interested in attacking me than addressing the issues at hand, it is perhaps not surprising that it has overlooked my previous comments about the need for further independent research. Let me remind the government of the research that I referred to 12 months ago. First, the Cox report found that proposed improvements in school management conditions could not be causally related to significantly improved learning outcomes. The Cox report states:

The implementation of local school management is premised on the belief that student outcomes will improve. This needs to be tested. The research literature is ambivalent about the degree to which this has been achieved in other locations. The causal relationship between changes in school management and improvement in student learning is complex and hence the research strand needs to focus on a range of factors and use multiple methodologies.

It is quite plain from the Cox report that there is a question about the causal relationship. It stresses the need for research. On that basis, one must ask: why the hurry to get all schools into P21 as quickly as possible?

Secondly, I draw the government's attention to recent doctoral research on public education in Australia. The work of Simon Marginson found that Partnerships 21 style shifts to local school management result in tighter control of schooling by departments which could overturn decentralised administrative arrangements at a whim, as well as maintain control of resources and definitions of quality education. Dr Marginson's research was the winner of the University of Melbourne's chancellor's prize and the Harbinson- Higginbotham Research Scholarship for Excellence. The published version of his dissertation entitled Markets in Education made the following observations:

Markets penalise non-conformism and experimentalism in teaching, and enforce standardised curriculum contents and modes of participation. In the production of knowledge goods, innovations per se is not penalised, but it is constrained to narrower and shorter paths.

At the same time markets atomise, rank and segment the people they control. Far from creating a realm of general prosperity in which success is determined by merit, markets interact with the positional character of education so as to create a top tier of institutions and a corresponding tier of consumer users which are `market immune' and difficult to displace. Below, producers and consumers form matching clusters on each level of the positional hierarchy, down to the bottom where schools and students are mutually locked into an education poverty cycle. The intensification of market competition strengthens the privileges of the leading families and reduces the pressure on the leading institutions to become efficient and consumer responsive.

Thirdly, I referred in my speech to the work of Professor John Smyth. Professor Smyth worked at Deacon University at the time Schools for the Future was introduced but has subsequently come to South Australia to head the Flinders' Institute for the Study of Teaching. This branch of Flinders University is an international leader in educational research. In his publication A Socially Critical View of the Self-managing School Professor Smyth notes concerns amongst experience educationalists that school self-management is all responsibility and no power. Referring to the shift to self-management, he writes:

Is a way of the state arrogantly shirking its responsibility for providing equitable quality education for all. It promotes greater inequality as those who have the financial and cultural capital are able to flee by buying a better education and the rest remain trapped in some kind of educational ghetto.

Treating schools as if they were like convenience stores, managing their own affairs deflects attention away from the educational issues by making people in schools into managers and entrepreneurs. Turning principals into mini chief executive officers may have limited rhetorical appeal, but it takes them a long way from being the kind of educational leaders our schools desperately need.

Giving schools budgetary control may not produce staffing profiles of the best trained, qualified and experienced teachers, as principals and their councils cut corners in order to balance dwindling budgets.

Schools need to be properly resourced in order to do their crucial work. School based management is about cutting resources to schools and getting school communities to own and manage their own decline.

I am pleased to note that DETE is currently conducting further research into local school management. While I recognise that this is not a study of Partnerships 21 but local school management generally, I look forward to the release of these findings. I also encourage the state government to place a moratorium on Partnerships 21 until these findings and the findings of other such research can be considered as part of a parliamentary inquiry into Partnerships 21.

When one considers the Victorian experience of local school management, proper independent research is not only attractive but essential. My own research in Victoria in October 1999 found that local school management had failed because it was not adequately resourced and schools were left holding the responsibility without any additional funding and flexibility; for example, funding to Victorian public schools has dropped by 15 per cent since the scheme was introduced in 1992. Further, I note the December 1999 study, Voices from our Schools, which took 160 submissions from all sectors of the community. I quote several major findings, as follows:

The increasing dependence on locally raised funds is creating an ever-widening gap between richer and poorer areas. The more essential fund raising becomes, the greater will be the inequalities between schools. Schools vary enormously in their ability to raise funds. An individual school's fund raising capacity depends on many factors, many of which-for example, its location and the composition of the community- are outside the control of the school.

The competitive culture presently encouraged within the state education system is undermining and replacing the sense of cooperation and partnership that formerly existed between schools. Inevitably, the losers are our children. Greater flexibility for schools in some areas has been offset by greater control-tighter regulations and stipulations, curriculum requirements, accountability frameworks and a growing emphasis on tied funding. New management arrangements in schools are leading to the atomisation of the system with no central locus of responsibility.

In short, this study warns that the model on which Partnerships 21 is based depoliticises problems in public schools by shifting responsibility to the local school governing council.

My concern is that, despite the fact that some problems are already emerging in some Partnerships 21 schools, for many schools in the short term it may work reasonably well in terms of perhaps a marginally more efficient spending of funds. However, the bigger risk is in the long term. If we had had Partnerships 21 for the past two decades, where would the pressure have come from to provide computer facilities in our schools? The government response would be, `You have a global budget. If you want computers, you can buy them out of the global budget.' In other words, with any issue that comes up-whether it be technology, children with disability or whatever-previously you could have a debate across the whole system and about whether or not resources should be applied. Another example is attention deficit disorder, which is something that really had not been diagnosed until fairly recently. It is a real problem, and it is treatable. However, it does have resource implications.

As the debate evolves, we will see that schools with global budgets will be told, `You've got a global budget; you allocate funds to look after it.' The ability for systemic pressure to improve things in particular areas or more generally will be gone. There will be increasing pressure for schools to find money in other ways. So you will find McDonalds sponsored canteens and schools coming back to the government and saying, `We want our school fees raised, because we do not have enough money.' That is one of the things I have been concerned about with compulsory school fees. It sounds fine to say, `Look, some parents are bludging off others.' However, the combination of Partnerships 21 and compulsory fees is deadly. It is deadly because, knowing the way the political process works-not just the educational process-I know that governments without commitment to public education in the future will reduce funding, and the way some schools will get out of it is by asking for their fees to be increased. So, that de facto privatisation of schools that I have talked about will accelerate, and I do not think it is a matter of if but when.

I note briefly the Purple Sage project released earlier this year that was a product of six organisations- the Victorian Women's Trust; the Stegley Foundation; the Victorian Local Governance Association; the People Together project; the YWCA; and the brotherhood of St Laurence. Between 1998 and this year, this project involved over 6 000 Victorians and engaged them in serious dialogue over what these people thought were important issues. This project found that Victorians were concerned by recent funding cuts to education and the pressure on school councils and parent clubs to secure more money through fund raising, and they were sceptical about the capacity of privatised bodies to provide quality community services such as education. If for no other reason, the experience of the Victorians who have gone before us in the privatisation of education should serve as a warning and a reason for careful and considered action in the future.

I note that there are Victorians who see some improvements but, of course, as I said earlier, they have not come from the same base. Victorians had very little say in the running of their schools, whereas for several decades South Australians have enjoyed a significant say already in the operation of their schools. So, there are undoubtedly some Victorians who, on the swings and roundabouts, might feel that they have made a net gain. We have already made most of the gains because, before Partnerships 21, parents already had a significant say in the running of schools.

All I am calling for is less haste. There should be no special incentives for schools to go in. If Partnerships 21 is a good scheme, schools will go in because they are convinced it is a good scheme. I have been contacted by many parents over just the past couple of months who are on school councils that have not gone into Partnerships 21. They have been saying to me that some of their councils have been considering going into Partnerships 21 not because they think it is a good thing but solely because they are concerned that the bribe is there. It is money that they could use in the school-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I haven't got to the principals yet. There is money if they go in but there is not if they do not go in. I suppose there is a sense of inevitability. It is not because they think it is a good thing: in fact, they have serious reservations. Because they are concerned about their kids and extra money is there, they go in. If SASSO feels that is a good thing-that the end justifies the means-I am shocked.

By way of interjection, the Hon. Paul Holloway made a comment about principals. Certainly, I have had direct and indirect reports of a couple of things regarding principals. Firstly, the principals have been simply called in and told what they should be doing. Principals have been told that, if their school is a P21 school and they go for an appointment at another P21 school, they will have a much better chance of getting a job because they have experience with Partnerships 21. Many principals have a simple career choice which has nothing to do with what is good for the school: it is what is good for them. By getting in early and getting P21 experience, they can apply at any other school but, if they do not have P21 experience, they cannot.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Well, it is a form of blackmail, but it is a matter of whether self- interest gets in the way of the interests of the school itself. I would also be interested to see the statistics on the number of principals who are on one-year placements and the number of their schools that have gone into P21 as distinct from others. I am aware of a number of schools that fit into that category. Although we were told that schools would not go in without the majority support of both parents and students, quite a few schools have gone in without that.

I am aware that there is enormous pressure in Belair Primary School right at the moment. When there was a vote of staff at the school, one staff member voted in favour of going into Partnerships 21, yet the school council is seriously considering this. As I recall, I think it was 27 against and one for, and four abstained. Yet we were told that this was a partnership between parents and teachers. One teacher in the whole school supported going into Partnerships 21, yet the council looks like saying `Yes, we're going in.' It is absolutely extraordinary, and that is just one example I am aware of because my youngest daughter happens to go to that school. I have any amount of correspondence from members of school councils, parent bodies and teachers who are saying that all sorts of manipulations are being used to get a result which does not have majority support.

In conclusion, the Australian Democrats believe that Partnerships 21 gives public schools all the financial responsibility but none of the power to budget or to make major financial decisions. This is of great concern, because the shift can then be used to cover up cutbacks by state governments in human and financial resources. While we support school council and parent participation in public schooling, we are concerned about a scheme that espouses these virtues but ignores the warnings of independent research, dedicated professionals and South Australian parents. We call on the state government to learn from its mistakes of the last 12 months, to slow down the pace, to take off the pressure to join, and to let schools choose to join because they are convinced of its merits and its merits alone. And we call on the government to support an inquiry into the scheme and allow that to be completed. I urge all members to support the motion.