In this wide-ranging interview, Kate Ambrose, Director of the Centre for Professional Learning and Maurie Mulheron, past NSW Teachers Federation President, go deep into the history of Local Schools, Local Decisions. This policy has defined the past decade of the NSW public school system, devolving the structure of the state-wide system with detrimental effects on every school and classroom in the state. Kate and Maurie discuss the policy decisions that led to the implementation of Local Schools, Local Decisions and the ongoing ramifications on the public school system in NSW.
Subject: Public Education
Empowering teachers through the meaningful use of data and evidence
What do data and evidence mean for you, your school, and your students? What does it mean to be data literate? What does evidence-based decision-making look like in the school context? Making meaningful use of data and evidence empowers the teacher to make informed decisions about their students’ progress based on professional judgement.
This course looks closely into different definitions of data and evidence, the different types of data that are available to teachers on a day-to-day basis, evidence-based decision making, uses and purposes of data, and how to make data fit for purpose.
Professor Jim Tognolini from the University of Sydney’s Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment will lead an interactive and content driven professional learning day. Completing this course will give you a voice in the narrative around the purposes of data and evidence in classrooms and schools.
This course is NESA Accredited. Please expand the ‘Accreditation’ bar for further details.
Face to Face
Wednesday, 21 June
Federation House, 23-33 Mary Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010
Online via Zoom
Wednesday, 25 October
Prof Jim Tognolini
Professor Jim Tognolini is Director of The Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA) which is situated within the University of Sydney School of Education and Social Work. The work of the Centre is focused on the broad areas of teaching, research, consulting and professional learning for teachers.
The Centre is currently providing consultancy support to a number of schools. These projects include developing a methodology for measuring creativity; measuring 21st Century Skills; developing school-wide practice in formative assessment. We have a number of experts in the field: most notably, Professor Jim Tognolini, who in addition to conducting research offers practical and school-focused support.
Completing Empowering Teachers Through the Meaningful Use of Data and Evidence: K-12 will contribute 5 hours of NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) Accredited PD in the priority area of Delivery and Assessment of NSW Curriculum/EYLF addressing standard descriptors 5.4.2 from the Australian professional Standards for Teachers towards maintaining Proficient Teacher Accreditation in NSW.
$200 for one day
Face to face (21 June 2023) and online via Zoom (25 October 2023)
Modern Assessment Theory and Assessment Strategies for Higher Order Thinking: K – 12
Overview
In this course you will develop a practical understanding of modern assessment theory and look at strategies for promoting and assessing higher order thinking skills in your students. We will focus on two assessment formats: multiple choice, and performance-based items, and consider the purpose and design of rubrics. We will look in depth at the advantages, disadvantages, tricks, and pitfalls of these different styles, emphasising the interrelationship between learning and assessment.
Professor Jim Tognolini and Dr Sofia Kesidou from the University of Sydney’s Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment lead an interactive and content-driven professional learning day. Completing this course will consolidate your expertise in helping your students develop analytical, evaluative, and creative skills.
This course is NESA Accredited. Please expand the ‘Accreditation’ bar for further details.
Online via Zoom
Tuesday, 25 July 2023
Prof Jim Tognolini
Professor Jim Tognolini is Director of The Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA) which is situated within the University of Sydney School of Education and Social Work. The work of the Centre is focused on the broad areas of teaching, research, consulting and professional learning for teachers.
The Centre is currently providing consultancy support to a number of schools. These projects include developing a methodology for measuring creativity; measuring 21st Century Skills; developing school-wide practice in formative assessment. We have a number of experts in the field: most notably, Professor Jim Tognolini, who in addition to conducting research offers practical and school-focused support.
Dr Sofia Kesidou
Sofia Kesidou is an executive leader and academic researcher with close to 30-years’ experience in international educational assessment, curriculum and research.
Sofia has taught courses in assessment to undergraduate and graduate students, and has conducted numerous professional-development sessions related to standards-based curriculum and assessment as well as assessment and data literacy internationally.
Completing Modern Assessment Theory and Assessment Strategies for Higher Order Thinking: K-12 will contribute 5 hours of NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) Accredited PD in the priority area of Delivery and Assessment of NSW Curriculum/EYLF addressing standard descriptors 5.1.2 from the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers towards maintaining Proficient Teacher Accreditation in NSW.
K-12 teachers
$200
Online via Zoom (25 July 2023)
Secondary English Conference – Vision, Values and Inspiration: Getting Ready for the New 7-10 English Syllabus
Overview
The CPL’s Secondary English Conference team is back in 2023 with a focus on the new 7-10 English syllabus.
Professor Jackie Manuel will deliver a keynote address on why English matters and how the new syllabus is an opportunity to renew and reassert the importance of the subject of English.
Other conference sessions will include an overview of the new 7-10 English syllabus and insights into programming.
Sessions on syllabus text requirements and texts to inspire student interest and engagement will provide many ideas.
Our classroom practitioners will share how they intend to plan and program while showcasing teaching and learning relevant to the new syllabus through specific classroom snapshots.
We will end the day with a Q and A panel providing an opportunity for all participants to pose questions about the implementation of the new 7-10 English syllabus.
Session 1
Keynote: Professor Jackie Manuel will present an historical perspective on the vision, values and development of junior secondary English in NSW. Her presentation will identify what has endured and what has changed in our subject over the past 110 years. The presentation will highlight the empowering influence of historical knowledge on our critical role as English teachers.
Head Teacher insights to programming the new 7-10 English syllabus Steve Henry and Rosemary Henzell
Realities of the current context
- Where are we right now?
- Where do we want to go?
- Why do we want to go there?
Deb McPherson and Jane Sherlock:
- An overview of the key features of the syllabus
- Examine opportunities for text selection and faculty audit
Session 2
Focus on Stage 4
Head Teacher insights from Steve Henry and Rosemary Henzell
Explore how two schools showcase Stage 4 teaching and learning relevant to the new syllabus through specific classroom snapshots
Text requirements and selection for Stage 4
Deb McPherson and Jane Sherlock
Exploring the new requirements of the syllabus
Showcasing Stage 4 texts and ideas to inspire student interest and engagement with the new syllabus
Session 3
Focus on Stage 5
Head Teacher insights from Steve Henry and Rosemary Henzell
Explore how two schools showcase Stage 5 teaching and learning relevant to the new syllabus through specific classroom snapshots
Text requirements and selection for Stage 5
Deb McPherson and Jane Sherlock
- Exploring the new requirements of the syllabus
- Showcasing Stage 5 texts and ideas to inspire student interest and engagement with the new syllabus
Q&A with panel
Registrants have the opportunity to post questions about the implementation of the new 7-10 English syllabus
Surry Hills
Friday 16 June
Federation House
23-33 Mary St, Surry Hills, NSW 2010
$250 for the day
Completing Secondary English Conference – Vision, Values and Inspiration: Getting Ready for the New 7-10 English Syllabus will contribute 5 hours of NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) Accredited PD in the priority area of Delivery and Assessment of NSW Curriculum/EYLF addressing Standard Descriptor 2.2.2 from the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers towards maintaining Proficient Teacher Accreditation in NSW.
Australia, Educational Lone Wolf?
Pasi Sahlberg delves into a discussion of Australia’s place in the world of education, and examines why Australia is somewhat of an outlier in that world . . .
Wolves live in extended families called packs. That helps wolves to defend their territories and ensure the protection of, and food for, the young. Cooperation is why wolves survive in harsh conditions in wilderness.
Sometimes a wolf leaves the pack and becomes a lone wolf. A lone wolf is often stronger than the others in the pack. In the wolf kingdom a lone wolf can also be a curious young adult that wants to explore new territories rather than follow the others. Sometimes it is a rebel that doesn’t get along with the rest.
In this article I wonder whether Australia has become an educational lone wolf. While Australia formally belongs to international organisations such as OECD, UNESCO, and World Economic Forum, and takes part in their education programmes, Australia is becoming an outlier in terms of the directions its education systems are heading now. A couple of decades ago the Australian education system was a role model for many others, not so much anymore. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
International lessons
Leading an education system is not easy. Since no one seems to have an answer to all the questions to which education ministers and their servants are expected to respond, closer professional cooperation and exchange of ideas between governments have become the new normal in global educational leadership. Collective search for solutions to education systems’ problems does not always succeed, but it can help to avoid adopting some bad ideas that sometimes only make things worse.
International experts have voiced their concerns that Australia might be on the wrong course if it aims to offer world class education to all children in the future. Already a decade ago Michael Fullan advised Australians by saying there is no way that ambitious and admirable nationwide goals, set out in the Melbourne Declaration, will be met with the strategies being used then. “No successful system in the world has ever led with these drivers”, Fullan (2011, 7) wrote. Last year he told Australian education leaders that a decade may have been lost due to the inability to choose the right drivers in education reforms. In September, speaking to a group of school leaders, OECD’s education director Andreas Schleicher warned Australia of the perils of the wrong way, saying we may end up training our youth to become second class robots instead of educating them to be first class humans. Both of these global authorities have deep personal understanding of Australian education.
During the last decade Australian education has had a trend of declining performance, similar to what most other OECD countries have experienced. For example, according to the latest international data, one fifth of Australian 15-year-olds miss adequate literacy skills targets needed in life (OECD, 2019). That figure reaches almost half of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia (ACER, 2019). Trends are similar in mathematical and scientific literacy as well. Regardless of frequent reforms and steadily increased total expenditure on education, learning outcomes remain stagnant or decline.
We can change the course but not with the same logic that has caused this inconvenient situation. This would be easier through policy learning in closer collaboration with other education nations.
Living without a pack
Recent educational literature and research describes, in detail, various aspects of the state of Australian education today (Bonnor et al., 2021; Burns and McIntyre, 2017; Netolicky et al. 2019; Reid, 2020). Contemporary issues and challenges in professional publications are clear and commonly accepted among education practitioners, experts, and academics. These issues and challenges include, but are not limited to, school funding, systemic educational inequalities, and an inadequate initial teacher education system. It is good to keep in mind that we are not alone with these challenges; many other countries are trying to solve these same problems, too.
The problem is not that we wouldn’t know enough about what is behind the declining educational performance in Australia during the past two decades. There is no shortage of reviews, evaluations, declarations, and commission reports about the education system and how it is not working the way it should. The problem is that we are not good at turning these findings and recommendations into new practices that would eventually make education better.
The real issue is that during the past decade Australia has become a passive member in an increasingly vibrant international community of education system leaders. One such global platform is the International Summit on the Teaching Profession (ISTP) that was launched in 2011 by the OECD and Education International (EI) as a response to emerging problems such as teacher shortages, initial teacher education, and professionalism in the teaching profession (Edwards and Schleicher, 2021). ISTP is a high-level invitation-only policy forum for the world’s best-performing education systems. Delegates, that must include a nation’s education minister and the head of national teacher association (i.e., Australian Education Union), take two days to explore current issues in the teaching profession and discuss solutions to current issues and challenges, such as teacher shortages and initial teacher education.
Australia has been invited to attend these summits since the beginning. Every time, it has declined to attend. A decade of valuable opportunities to learn from others and build professional and political relationships has been wasted. In absence of these professional and policy dialogues, the perspective to the challenges we try to work out becomes narrower. At the same time, Australian schools and educators would have a lot to offer to their peers in other countries. It seems like we are a lone wolf in global education.
How are Australian schools different?
In many ways Australian schools are like schools anywhere in the OECD. In most education statistics (whether is about class sizes, curricula, or how much is spent on education) Australia is like most others (OECD, 2022). There are, however, some aspects where schools here are very different from most others. These are all issues that beg the question: What do these differences mean in practice?
Here is a brief description of three things that make Australian school system an outlier among the OECD community.
1. Total number of compulsory instruction hours for children during primary and lower secondary education
Around the world, children start primary education typically when they are six years old. They then continue schooling in lower secondary and upper secondary schools. Overseas, the total length of school education is about 12 years, in Australia it is 13 years. The school year includes normally 36 to 40 weeks (or 180 to 200 schooldays). Comparing compulsory instruction hours, that students in different countries are required to attend during primary and lower secondary education, reveals the whole picture See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Compulsory instruction time in general education in hours in public primary and lower secondary schools

Source: OECD (2021)
According to Figure 1, primary and lower secondary education in OECD countries, lasts on average, 7,638 instruction hours during 9 years of schooling. In Finland, for example, that time is 6,384 over 9 years of schooling. Australian students have a total of 11 years of primary and lower secondary education that equals to 11,060 instruction hours (OECD, 2021). That is more than in any other OECD country. Schooldays in primary education in other OECD countries are often significantly shorter compared to Australia. Again, children spend more time in primary school in Australia than their peers in Finland, Estonia, or South Korea spend in primary and lower secondary education combined.
What does that mean in practice? Some might expect that because Australian students spend so much more time in school by the age of 15, their academic outcomes in OECD’s PISA or other international assessments must be much better than students in Korea, Estonia, or Finland. But that is not so. There is no correlation between students’ instruction time and academic performance in school.
2. Distribution of public and private expenditure on primary and secondary schools
Education is not cheap. Governments in OECD countries allocate 10 to 15 per cent of their national budgets to education. There are different ways to compare how much – or little – countries around the world spend on educating their youth. One common indicator is total expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary institutions as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Total spending in OECD countries on primary, secondary, and post-secondary non-tertiary education institutions, on average, is 3.5 per cent of GDP as Figure 2 shows.
Figure 2. Total expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP by source of funds

Source: OECD (2021)
Education is quite expensive in Australia, too. Total spending on school education in Australia according to Figure 2, is about 4 per cent of GDP that is significantly more than the average spending in OECD countries. What makes Australia different in this club of world’s wealthiest nations is the share of funding that parents pay for their children’s education. At primary and secondary education, private spending from parents’ pockets accounts for 0.3% of GDP across OECD countries. In Australia it amounts to at least 0.7% of GDP that is one of the largest relative shares of private funding of primary and secondary education among all OECD countries.
In other words, private spending accounts for 10% of expenditure at primary and secondary education on average across OECD countries, but it reaches 20% in Australia (OECD, 2020).
Australia is also an outlier in terms of the relatively high proportion of students, in primary and secondary education, who attend non-government schools. Now, that figure is about 35 per cent, being higher among secondary school-aged students especially in urban areas where there is more choice (ABS, 2022). What it means to have public education has become a different question in Australia compared to many other rich countries.
3. Proportion of disadvantaged children attending schools where the majority of students are disadvantaged
Parents’ right to choose the suitable school for their children has been part of the global education reform movement since the 1990s (Sahlberg, 2016). This has served well some parents and their children but has led to growing segregation of schools by the socio-economic conditions of students. Market mechanisms don’t always work in education as expected. Absence of intelligent regulation of education markets have led many countries to see increasing number of disadvantaged students attending schools where most students are disadvantaged like them. Figure 3 illustrates what the situation was in 2018.
Figure 3. Proportion of disadvantaged students attending schools where the majority of students are disadvantaged in OECD countries

Source: OECD (2018)
There are only four other OECD countries where larger proportion of disadvantaged students are studying in schools where the majority of students are disadvantaged. In Australia, based on OECD data shown in Figure 3, that figure is 52 per cent. This is a consequence of education policies in Australia during the last two decades that have treated education as a marketplace where parental choice determines supply and demand of schooling. OECD’s (2018) analysis has revealed that when a disadvantaged student attends a school where the majority of students are not disadvantaged, by the age of 15 that student will be, educationally speaking, approximately 2.5 years ahead of students who attend schools where the majority of students are disadvantaged.
Where next?
Being a lone wolf may be good if the rest of the pack is heading in the wrong direction. But, if you are alone surrounded by challenges and have lost a way to go, being without a pack may become difficult. Navigating in the wilderness alone can be difficult and risky. Solving wicked problems with others often leads to better solutions.
In 2022, Australia has a new federal government and many of its jurisdictions are electing new parliaments soon. One good decision the ministers and their education system leaders could make is to return to international education policy dialogues. There are many good opportunities to learn how other countries deal with the teacher shortages or modernise initial teacher education to better meet the needs of future schools, for example.
Every year, since 2011, the OECD and Education International have organised the International Summit on the Teaching Profession with the world’s top-performing education systems. Here education ministers and education leaders from the top 20 education nations explore current issues and innovation in the teaching profession. Collaboration between ministers and teachers’ unions as well as genuine policy learning between the nations are the key principles of these summits. Minister Jason Clare could attend in the 2023 summit that will be hosted by the Biden administration in Washington DC. This is perhaps the best next opportunity to learn what could be improved in the current federal government’s action plan and in teacher policies across the country. All ‘education nations’ are there, why wouldn’t we be?
Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) (2019). PISA 2018. Reporting Australia’s Results. Vol. 1. Student Performance. https:// research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/35/.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2022). Schools. Data on students, staff, schools, rates and ratios for government and non-government schools, for all Australian states and territories. Retrieved on 10 October from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release.
Bonnor, C., Kidson, P., Piccoli, A., Sahlberg, P. & Wilson, R. (2021). Structural Failure: Why Australia keeps falling short of its educational goals. Sydney: UNSW Gonski Institute.
Burns, D. and McIntyre, A. (2017). Empowered Educators in Australia: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Edwards, D. And Schleicher, A. (2021). 10 years of ISTP – what governments and unions can achieve together. Education International. Retrieved on 6 October from https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/23380:10-years-of-istp-what-governments-and-unions-can-achieve-together-by-andreas-schleicher-and-david-edwards
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing wrong drivers for whole system reform (Seminar series 204). Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Strategic Education.
Netolicky, D., Andrews, J., and Paterson, C. (Eds.) (2019). Flip the system Australia – What matters in education. London: Routledge.
OECD (2018). Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. Paris:OECD Publishing.
OECD (2021). Education at a glance. Education indicators. Paris:OECD Publishing.
OECD (2022). Education at a glance. Education indicators. Paris:OECD Publishing.
Reid, A. (2020). Changing Australian Education: How policy is taking us backwards and what can be done about it. London: Routledge.
Sahlberg, P. (2016). Global Educational Reform Movement and its impact on teaching. In Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, R., and Verger, A. (Eds.) The Handbook of Global Policy and Policymaking in Education. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 128-144.

Pasi Sahlberg is a Finnish educator, former schoolteacher, and award-winning author who has lifelong career in education. His books and essays about education are translated into 30 languages and read around the world.
Pasi is recipient of several honours and awards for his work for education as human right, including 2012 Education Award in Finland, 2014 Robert Owen Award in Scotland, 2016 Lego Prize in Denmark, and 2021 Dr Paul Brock memorial Medal in NSW.
His research interests include education policy and reform, equity in education, international education issues, and school improvement. He is Professor of Education at the Southern Cross University in Lismore, visiting professor at the UNSW Business School, and Adjunct Professor at the Universities of Helsinki and Oulu in Finland. Pasi lives in Lennox Head with his wife and two sons.
Local Schools, Local Decisions – A Lost Decade
Maurie Mulheron gives us all an insight into the effects that Local Schools, Local Decisions has had on education in NSW. . .
In a choreographed media conference outside a public high school in western Sydney on Sunday 11 March 2012, the NSW Government announced Local Schools, Local Decisions (LSLD) with the Premier and Minister for Education flanked by representatives of two principal groups. It was a plan purporting to ‘empower’ schools. But the evidence is that a far more sinister ulterior purpose, which had been some years in the planning, was driving the policy.
The issue of ‘school autonomy’ is hardly new. It has been an article of faith for many conservative politicians and some economists around the world since the 1970s. It has its origins in a neo-liberal economic theory that public provision is wasteful and ineffective, government expenditure should be reduced, taxation should be lowered and that the more competitive the environment in which government services operate the more efficient they will become. It is a theory that is applied to all aspects of public sector management. ‘School autonomy’ is not an idea relating to teaching and learning that was developed by teachers or education theorists. Its origins and purpose are based in economics and finance.
This is why two international management consultant and accountancy corporations were engaged by the NSW Treasury between October 2009 and January 2010 to conduct a detailed financial audit of the NSW Department of Education and Training (DET), the first NSW government agency to submit to the process. In time this would provide Treasury with the economic rationale for LSLD.
The overarching work was undertaken by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) which was contracted “…to undertake a scan of DET expenditure and to develop a methodology that will allow Treasury to undertake future scans of other agencies.” Its purpose was to achieve significant financial savings. The January 2010 BCG document was called Expenditure Review of the Department of Education and Training (DET) – Initial Scan.i
The second corporation engaged at the time to undertake complementary work was Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC). Its December 2009 report, DET School-based employee related costs review – Interim Report was also prepared for the NSW Cabinet. While the BCG scan dealt with all the operations of the Department, the PWC report dealt specifically with staffing costs. As stated in its objectives, the report was to “…review areas of expenditure relating to DET’s School-based employees where there is scope for change and recommend actions to reduce DET’s expenditure in these areas.”ii
SECRET CABINET DOCUMENTS LEAKED
Both of these Cabinet-in-Confidence documents were never meant to be seen by the community or the teaching profession. However, in the lead-up to the March 2011 state election they came into the possession of the NSW Teachers Federation which, in response, reiterated the union’s concerns that ‘school autonomy’ models had seriously weakened public provision of education. The evidence for this had been mounting overseas for many years. In Australia, during the 1990s the Victorian Liberal Government instigated a dramatic experiment in devolution through the passing of the Education (Self-Governing Schools) Act (1998). It was later repealed by an incoming Labor Government but not before it had seen Victoria’s performance on governments’ benchmarks for achievement, the international PISA testing program, fall below the Australian average in all tested areas – reading, mathematics, and science.iii
In the week leading up to the 2011 NSW state election, the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) revealed the intent of the secret BCG and PWC reports.iv “The shock comes not so much from the report’s far-reaching findings – which cut deep – but in the way it has been kept secret for so long. The deception used to get hard-working principals and teachers to, in effect, do the dirty work, will strike them as a betrayal.”v
And the betrayal was clearly articulated in the BCG report, “We have identified some quick wins, but have focused mostly on identifying the major opportunities to drive significant savings over time.”
To achieve this the BCG, throughout the review, argued the merits of the devolved school autonomy model of Victoria and, indeed, used Victoria as the benchmark. It noted that “NSW appears to have approximately 9000 more ‘in-school’ staff than Victoria”, also arguing that “NSW appears to have 13% more school related staff than Victoria”, and that “NSW appears to have 12% more non-teaching staff than Victoria.” The review goes on to argue that once the model of devolution similar to Victoria is adopted, “DET should aim to capture as much of this gap [in staffing levels] as possible.”vi
In essence, the BCG review argued that cost cutting through devolution could provide, “opportunities … worth $500-$700 million in recurrent costs and $800-$1000 million in one-off benefits.” The BCG review even advised how the devolved model could be sold to the public, “Possible to position these initiatives as part of a broader school regeneration or schools for the future program.”vii
What was becoming clear was that the NSW Treasury was determined to reduce the number of employees across the NSW public education system, and this was the focus of the second scan undertaken by PWC. The strategy was to ensure principals delivered the savings. Indeed, one section was labelled, “Empower Principals to act” where the report states, “We believe that increasing Principal accountability for managing School-based costs should be focused on driving a positive financial impact in the short to medium term while also maintaining educational outcomes.”viii
REPORTS REJECTED THEN DUSTED OFF
These two reports could easily be dismissed, as they were provided to the NSW Cabinet in the final months of the Labor administration, with an impending March 2011 state election. It should be noted that the extreme nature of the reports’ recommendations led the then Labor Education Minister to shelve both of them. However, they cannot be so easily ignored as both reports by these two corporations were to inform, and were referenced in, the incoming NSW Coalition Government’s Commission of Audits, one released as an Interim Report into Public Sector Managementix in late January 2012 and the Final Report: Government Expenditurex published in May 2012. Indeed, in the latter paper, there are 64 references to the benefits of devolution as a means of achieving efficiencies across the whole of government.
The NSW Commission of Audit Final Report of May 2012 stated,
“For many years financial management in NSW has been confusing, lacking in transparency and below the standards expected of efficient and effective government. This situation is not sustainable.”
The answer, it argued, is that,
“The devolution of authority and accountability, specifically in the areas of education and health, means expenditure (and power) must move from the centre to more local units.”
“The Commission is generally of the view that devolution should not increase expenditure in aggregate though capabilities and systems will need attention at the start. Expenditure in local units should however increase and be offset by reductions at the centre. These are exciting reforms that offer a new era for TAFE, more power and responsibility to school principals, and more community and clinician input and responsibility within Health.”xi
THE 47 SCHOOL TRIAL
Running parallel to the work that BCG and PWC was undertaking from October 2009 until January 2010, was a devolution trial involving 47 schools called the School-Based Management Pilot which was to test some of the key BCG and PWC concepts, notably as to whether local decision-making could produce savings similar to those captured in Victorian schools. This trial, which also began in late 2009, had originally been planned to end in 2010, but continued through to late 2011. Just a few weeks later in January 2012, the Final Report of the Evaluation of the School-Based Management Pilot was released.xii
Even though the justification for the 47 schools trial model was that it would bring about a lift in student achievement, in the final report evaluating the trial the entire section on student results was a mere 85 words in length in a document that ran to 92 pages. However, this should not have been of any surprise as there was no baseline academic data collected at the beginning of the trial, nor any other key data such as that regarding student suspensions, behaviour referrals, attendance, staff turnover. In fact, the only data collected by the NSW Department of Education related to student enrolments, data that is collected from every school annually. This revealed that, for the duration of the trial, 21 of the 47 schools lost enrolments. But this data was excluded from the final report. Instead, the evaluation based its positive findings on scant empirical evidence relying on anecdotal and subjective observations which included supposed comments of four different principals who all uttered almost identical phrases: “This has created a positive buzz in the school”; “[There’s] a buzz about the school in the town”; “Another principal reports ‘a buzz around the school in the community’”; “and there is a buzz about the school in town.” Four different principals all commenting on a perceived “buzz”. However, this woefully inadequate evaluation did not prevent the new Coalition Education Minister mentioning the trial’s “success” as a key justification for the introduction of LSLD.
The true purpose of the 47 schools trial was made clear in the earlier BCG report which revealed that the quarantined devolution model had led to savings of $15-25 million.xiii Later in the BCG report it was argued, “To capture savings from devolution requires more than the current rollout of the current [47 schools] trial. Current trial involves additional costs that will need to be phased out (e.g., to cover higher than average staff costs in some schools) and does not yet address staffing implications at the State and Regional Office.”xiv The “additional costs” were the significant additional funding each of the 47 schools received from the Department, in effect a temporary financial sweetener that would ensure a positive evaluation. It was only the BCG report that exposed that there was no intention to maintain this level of funding support beyond the trial. Towards the end of the BCG report the strategic thinking behind the trial was exposed: “[Must] test and measure impact and risk of devolved model(s) to prove concept. Assess risks and put in place any mitigation strategies to manage them.”xv
When LSLD was announced in March 2012, it was marketed as an education policy. This was the first of many falsehoods promulgated by the Government. There was no mention of the Boston Consulting Group report of 2010; no mention of the Price Waterhouse Coopers report; and no mention of the NSW Commission of Audit Reports of 2012 either. Nor did the Government ever reveal the real purpose of the 47 schools trial.
In fact, it was not the Minister for Education who was first to announce the LSLD policy. Instead, it was the NSW Treasurer who, in September 2011 when delivering his first budget, revealed “[The] Government plans to reform government schools by giving them more authority to make local decisions that better meet the needs of their students and communities.” This announcement could be found in the budget papers under the section “Delivering on structural fiscal and economic reform.”xvi
In reality, LSLD was always going to be about expenditure and the efficiency savings that could be secured, “There is considerable scope in NSW to reallocate expenditure in education and training to improve outcomes, through greater devolution of resource allocation decisions to principals and TAFE Institute Directors. This can occur within existing expenditure budgets.”xvii It is worth noting that the findings of the BCG report regarding the savings that could be accrued through devolution were referenced in the 2012 NSW Commission of Audit report.
So, what did the NSW Commission of Audit’s recommended ‘reductions at the centre’, a critical feature of Local Schools, Local Decisions, mean in practice? It is important to revisit the NSW Treasury’s demand on the Department of Education at the time.
Savings measures had to be identified by the Department in the 2011-2012 NSW budget to cover the four-year budget period up to 2015-2016. These measures were implemented as “general expenses in the education and communities portfolio have still outstripped the growth in government revenue”.xviii
The Department needed to find $201 million in savings from the 2012-2013 budget and $1.7 billion over the four year forward estimates period. The measures also included the 2.5 per cent labour expense cap, as detailed in the NSW Public Sector Wages Policy which had been reinforced by changes to the NSW Industrial Relations Act.
The savings demanded of the Department were introduced at the same time that Local Schools, Local Decisions was rolled out. In reality the ‘reductions at the centre’ resulted in a significant and unprecedented loss of positions from the Department, both public servant and non-school based teaching positions. And this, not a lift in student outcomes, was the primary objective of Local Schools, Local Decisions.
Ken Dixon, the general manager of finance and administration within the NSW Department of Education at the time, later described the policy to give principals more autonomy over school budgets as being driven by cost savings. In public comments he argued, “The Local Schools, Local Decisions policy is just a formula to pull funding from schools over time.” Mr Dixon, in a key senior Departmental position at the time the policy of Local Schools, Local Decisions was being developed, also revealed that the loss of at least 1600 jobs in the Department was factored into the business case. xix
The ‘reductions at the centre’ included the loss of hundreds of non-school based teachers and support staff from programs throughout NSW including from curriculum support, professional development, staffing, drug and alcohol education, student welfare, student behaviour, community liaison, staff welfare, the equity unit, rural education, assessment and reporting, special education, and multicultural education. In essence, the capacity for the Department to initiate and fund system-wide support for teachers was decimated. To this day, the Department of Education has not been able to rebuild any significant systemic support.
6 MONTHS ON: THE CUTS ARE CONFIRMED
From the day that LSLD had been announced, the NSW Teachers Federation had opposed it, providing the evidence to members and the public that had been revealed to the union in the leaked BCG and PWC reports. An intense state-wide campaign was instigated. The union had been researching ‘school autonomy’ from at least 1988, prompted by the Metherell crisis. It had also studied closely the impact of devolution in other jurisdictions including Victoria, New Zealand and the UK. And there had been more recent experiences of ‘school autonomy’ policies that had been imposed in NSW.
Just a few years earlier in 2008, the Federation had been involved in a bitter and protracted industrial dispute with the NSW government over staffing including the loss of service transfer rights for teachers. The concern was the dramatic negative consequences for difficult to staff schools in outer metropolitan and rural areas. In a fax sent to all schools by the Federation at the time in the lead up to a 24-hour strike, the union showed remarkable prescience in sounding a warning that, “[The Government’s procedures will] establish the preconditions for the full deregulation agenda as in Victoria. Federation is in no doubt that if the NSW government succeeds in destroying the state-wide teacher transfer system that the next step is to introduce devolved staffing budgets to schools which include teacher and non-teacher salaries.”xx Just four years later this was now a fundamental element of the LSLD model.
It was also in the area of special education that the NSW government had instigated a devolved funding model which had been trialled in the Illawarra in 2011 and implemented across the state in 2012. This new method of allocating funding had been foreshadowed in the BCG report which stated that there was potential savings of up to $100 million from the “fast growing special education area”. Once again, comparing NSW to Victoria, the BCG report argued, “Victoria introduced reform initiatives in 2005 which stemmed growth of special education and suggests a broad opportunity exists to streamline NSW special education/equity programs”.xxi The scheme was promoted to the community as Every Student, Every School but it was clear that not every student in every school would receive the support they needed. The reduction in centralised support, for instance, led to funding cuts for thousands of students with autism and mental health concerns who were excluded from the Integration Funding Support program.xxii
It was not until 11 September of 2012, six months after the LSLD announcement, that the intention to dramatically cut funding to the school system and TAFE was finally revealed by the then NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell – a decision he described as “difficult but necessary”. The total amount of education funding to be cut amounted to $1.7 billion, almost the exact figure to the dollar that the BCG and PWC reports had recommended could be achieved through devolving budgets to local principals and TAFE institute managers. Also confirmed in the announcement was the loss of a total of 1800 non-school based teaching and support staff positions from Department offices – from the centre and from regional offices. This was a similar number to the total that Ken Dixon had explained had been factored into the LSLD “business case”.xxiii
For months following the March 2012 public release of the LSLD policy, the Federation had been attacked by the Government which accused the union of lying to the profession about the intention to cut funding. But even though it was now vindicated, the Federation still found the news of the $1.7 billion cuts grim. Earlier, in response to the LSLD announcement, it had called all members out on strike, firstly in May 2012 for a two-hour stoppage, and later in June for a 24-hour strike.
While not preventing the full impact of the cuts to education, the strikes did achieve some important protections, at least for public school teachers. In response to the industrial action, the Department withdrew the plan to provide all schools with an actual staffing budget, making it notional instead. A school’s staffing entitlement, which was to be replaced by an unregulated principal’s choice of the ‘mix and number’ of staff, was also protected.
The Commission of Audit had declared that all staff ratios were to be removed from industrial agreements, citing NSW public school class sizes as the first example. “The Commission of Audit agrees that some workforce management policies and input controls are managerial prerogatives and should not be incorporated into awards…Examples are: teacher to pupil ratios…”xxiv
A public campaign in the lead-up to the strikes led to references to class sizes reconfirmed in subsequent industrial agreements. Finally, the plan to abolish the incremental pay scale was also withdrawn.
GONSKI – A POLITICAL LIFELINE
Following a long campaign led by the Australian Education Union, and strongly supported by the NSW Teachers Federation, a Federal Labor Government announced a comprehensive inquiry into schools funding in April 2010. The inquiry team was chaired by David Gonski whose name would become synonymous with the subsequent report delivered to government in November 2011. But it was not until 20 February 2012 that the report was released publicly. By April the following year, the Federal Government announced a new national $14.5 billion schools funding model. The funding was to be delivered over a six-year transition period from 2014 to 2019 with two-thirds of the funding to be provided in the final two years.
At its heart was the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS), effectively the minimum level of funding a school needed to have the vast majority of its students meet national outcomes. In essence, the more complex a school’s student profile, the greater level of funding it would attract, noting in the case of NSW public schools, the additional funding would be provided to the system to distribute on a needs basis.
On 23 April 2013, NSW became the first state to sign a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth, less than seven months after the announcement of the $1.7 billion cuts at the state level. In reality, the Gonski funding model was seen by the then NSW Education Minister as a political lifeline. The NSW Department of Education was faced with a serious contradiction. On the one hand, it had built a financial model to implement LSLD, but which was designed to de-fund the system in order to deliver $1.7 billion in savings. From 2014, however, there would be additional money provided to schools. But it soon became a case of a wasted opportunity. None of the additional recurrent funding could be used for any significant and much needed whole of system improvement. Improvements such as reduced class sizes, which for junior primary and lower secondary schools had not been reduced in many decades, nor for a reduction in face-to-face loads which also had not improved in decades. Indeed, there was little funding retained by the Department at the centre to rebuild the programs that had been decimated back in 2012. In other words, the government had squandered the opportunity to capitalise on a key advantage of the public education system which is its capacity to achieve massive economies of scale.
In a crude attempt to engender support for LSLD, the Department deliberately attempted to link LSLD with the additional Gonski funding in schools, as though the BCG and PWC audits, the Commission of Audit reports, the Public Sector Wages Policy, and the demand of the NSW government for departments to reduce labour expenses every year had not occurred. This re-writing of the history led to the Department’s Centre for Educational Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) developing a survey instrument that linked the two disparate variables — LSLD and additional funding. But neither of these variables, the system wide change to governance and the increase in Commonwealth and State funding, was dependent on the other. So, to conflate them in the first evaluation question where each variable is portrayed as being interdependent was a serious error, offending a basic tenet of research methodology. In response, the Federation raised the fundamental question as to exactly what was being evaluated: a change to the governance model of the public school system announced in March 2012 or the additional funding achieved two years later in 2014 through the National Education Reform Agreement (NERA).
LOST OPPORTUNITY
The additional funding had been allocated to individual schools untied, with little guidelines, minimal accountability and almost no programmatic system-wide support. Little wonder that even CESE’s Local Schools, Local Decisions Evaluation – Interim Report stated “…we were unable to determine…what each school’s [Resource Allocation Model] RAM equity loading allocation was spent on.”xxv
Firstly, the devolution model was never designed to make funding information transparent. Indeed, it was designed to do the exact opposite, make funding matters more opaque. This was because the devolution model was expressly designed for twin purposes: deliver savings back to central government and allow governments to shift the responsibility for these savings to local managers. It was only ever intended to give local schools the illusion of control.
Secondly, the model was never designed to distribute and manage significant increases in funding. There now existed no comprehensive systemic and state-wide programmes designed to lift student outcomes across all schools: “In terms of differential change over time, we found no relationship between changes over time in these engagement measures and levels of need, with the notable exception that students in higher-need schools typically showed less positive change over time in levels of social engagement than students in lower-need schools. In other words, the gap in this measure between higher-need and lower-need schools increased over time, rather than decreased.” [Author’s emphasis]xxvi
CRITICAL VOICES IGNORED
Over the years, there has been a tendency for government departments, like the NSW Department of Education, to declare that policies are developed from ‘evidence-based decision-making’. Yet, in the case of Local Schools, Local Decisions, this assertion must be contested. Moreover, it may actually be a case that the declaration of ‘evidence’ is a strategy to shut down debate, noting that very little in education policy, practice and theory exists without competing points of view.
The extreme Local Schools, Local Decisions policy was implemented dishonestly. Its true intentions were hidden from the profession with critical voices and available research ignored. In relation to ‘school autonomy’ models John Smyth believes, “Sometimes an educational idea is inexplicably adopted around the world with remarkable speed and consistency and in the absence of a proper evidence base or with little regard or respect for teachers, students or learning.”xxvii
In his essay, The disaster of the ‘self-managing school’ – genesis, trajectory, undisclosed agenda, and effects, Professor Smyth went on to argue that ‘school autonomy’ in reality is government “…steering at a distance, while increasing control through a range of outcomes-driven performance indicators.”
Further he said, “The argument was that schools would be freed up from the more burdensome aspects of bureaucratic control, and in the process allowed to be more flexible and responsive, with decisions being able to be made closer to the point of learning. Many of these claims have proven to be illusory, fictitious, and laughable to most practising school educators.”
Dr Ken Boston, one of the members of the Review of Funding for Schooling panel chaired by David Gonski, expressed frustration at the continuing promotion of devolution, arguing that “. . . school autonomy is an irrelevant distraction. I worked in England for nine years, where every government school . . . has the autonomy of the independent public schools in WA – governing boards that can hire and fire head teachers and staff, determine salaries and promotions, and so on. Yet school performance in England varies enormously from school to school, and from region to region, essentially related to aggregated social advantage in the south of the country and disadvantage in the north.”xxviii
Plank and Smith in their paper, Autonomous Schools: Theory, Evidence and Policy, argued, “Placing schools at the centre of the policy frame, freeing them from bureaucracy and exhorting them to do better has not by itself generated many of the systemic improvements, innovation, or productivity gains that policy makers hoped for.”xxix
Professor Steven Dinham from the University of Melbourne acknowledged the lack of evidence for ‘school autonomy’ models: “The theory that greater school autonomy will lead to greater flexibility, innovation and therefore student attainment is intuitively appealing and pervasive. School autonomy has become something of an article of faith. However, establishing correlation and causation is not so easy.” Dinham says, “What is needed above all however, is clear research evidence that the initiative works, and under what conditions, rather than blind enthusiasm for the concept.”xxx
‘School autonomy’ was responsible for a “lost decade” in education according to one of New Zealand’s leading education researchers Dr Cathy Wylie formerly of the New Zealand Council of Educational Research (NZCER). In her book, Vital Connections: Why We Need More Than Self-Managing Schoolsxxxi, Wylie argued that schools in NZ needed more central support, and that devolution had caused the loss of ‘vital connections’ between schools.
Even the OECD was ignored. In its 2009 PISA cross-country correlation analysis, PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV) the OECD authors argued that “. . . greater responsibility in managing resources appears to be unrelated to a school system’s overall student performance” and that “… school autonomy in resource allocation is not related to performance at the system level.”xxxii
And yet, this OECD report was released three years before the 2012 NSW Commission of Audit argued enthusiastically for a devolution model (sold later as Local Schools, Local Decisions).
A decade on, the catastrophic policy failure of Local Schools, Local Decisions is clear. The findings of the Department’s own research body, CESE, amplify this:
- “To date, LSLD appears to have had little impact on preliminary outcome measures.”
- “These results suggest that LSLD has not had a meaningful impact on attendance or suspensions.”
- “However, the direction of the relationship was not as we expected: students in higher-need schools showed less growth in social engagement than students in lower-need schools.”xxxiii
So, what has occurred after this lost decade? No lift in student outcomes, the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged widening, a massive increase in casual and temporary positions in schools, no improvements in attendance, no improvement in suspension rates, no lessening of ‘red-tape’, a dramatic increase in workload, growing teacher shortages, and the salary cap still in place. The paradox is, of course, that the more localised the decision-making, the more onerous, punitive and centrally controlled are the accountability measures.
The Local Schools, Local Decisions policy has left the NSW Department with no levers; no capacity to develop, fund and implement systemic improvements to lift all schools or to achieve massive economies of scale. Purportedly, the bulk of funding is in school bank accounts with the Department unable to determine what it is being spent on. Instead, we are left with policy by anecdote as revealed in the comments quoted within the CESE evaluation.
The tragedy of Local Schools, Local Decisions is that its structure remains in place, even if its name has changed. By 2021, the NSW Department had realised that LSLD had failed public schools, their teachers, and their students. It had also failed the community of NSW. Addicted to policy by alliteration, the Department rebadged it as the School Success Model (SSM). But this title reveals the continuing mind-set of both the Government and the Department. If we have learnt anything from the last decade it is that schemes like LSLD are essentially a cover for a government to abrogate its obligation to all children, all teachers, and all public schools. Instead, what is needed is for the NSW government, through its department, to accept it has an onus to provide systemic programmatic support rather than devolve the risk and responsibilities onto individual schools. Finally, the time to listen to and accept the advice of the teaching profession, and for the powerful, politically connected accountancy firms to be dismissed, is long overdue.
i Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Expenditure Review of the Department of Education and Training (DET) – Initial Scan (2010) pp 188-193
ii PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PWC) DET School-based employee related costs review – Interim Report (2009) p2
iii AEU (VIC) Submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission Inquiry into School Devolution and Accountability (2012) p2
iv Anna Patty SMH Secret cuts to schools (19 March 2011)
v Anna Patty SMH Secret report administers a shock to the system (19 March 2011)
vi BCG op.cit. pp 188-193
vii BCG op. cit. p92
viii PWC op. cit. p18
ix NSW Commission of Audit Interim Report into Public Sector Management (January 2012)
x NSW Commission of Audit Final Report: Government Expenditure (May 2012)
xi NSW Commission of Audit op. cit. p10
xii NSW DET Final Report of the Evaluation of the School-Based Management Pilot (2012)
xiii BCG op. cit. p13
xiv BCG op. cit. p34
xv BCG op. cit. p146
xvi NSW State Budget Papers 2. 1- 14-15
xvii NSW Commission of Audit Op. cit. p71
xviii NSW Department of Education and Communities Saving measures to meet our budget (2011)
xix Anna Patty SMH Tip of the iceberg: warning 1200 more education jobs to go (14 September 2012)
xx NSW Teachers Federation fax to all schools (13 May 2008)
xxi BCG op. cit. p58 and p150
xxii “Reform funding on need” in Education (NSWTF) (16 August 2022)
xxiii Anna Patty SMH NSW to slash $1.7 billion from education funding (11 September 2012)
xxiv NSW Commission of Audit: Public Sector Management p83 (24 January 2012)
xxv Centre for Education Statistics And Evaluation (CESE) LSLD Evaluation Interim Report (July 2018) p8
xxvi CESE Op. cit. p8
xxvii John Smyth The disaster of the ‘self‐managing school’ – genesis, trajectory, undisclosed agenda, and effects Journal of Educational Administration and History 43(2):95-117 (May 2011)
xxviii Quoted in Education Vol 97 No 7 Maurie Mulheron On Evidence Based Decision-Making 7 November 2016
xxix David N Plank and BetsAnn Smith Autonomous Schools: Theory, Evidence and Policy in Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy Helen F. Ladd and Edward Fiske (eds) (2007)
xxx Stephen Dinham The Worst of Both Worlds: How the US and UK Are Influencing Education in Australia Journal of Professional Learning (Semester 1 2016)
xxxi Cathy Wylie Vital Connections: Why We Need More Than Self-Managing Schools (2012)
xxxii OECD PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV) (2010)
xxxiii CESE Op. cit. p53, p51, p51
Australian Education Union (AEU Victoria ) (2012) Submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission Inquiry into School Devolution and Accountability
Boston Consulting Group (BCG) (2010) Expenditure Review of the Department of Education and Training (DET) – Initial Scan
Centre for Education Statistics And Evaluation (CESE) (July 2018) LSLD Evaluation Interim Report
Dinham, S., (2016) The Worst of Both Worlds: How the US and UK Are Influencing Education in Australia Journal of Professional Learning (Semester 1 2016)
Gonski , D et al (2011) Review of Funding for Schooling Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR)
OECD (2010) PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV)
Patty, A., (19 March 2011) Secret cuts to schools Sydney Morning Herald
Patty, A., (19 March 2011) Secret report administers a shock to the system Sydney Morning Herald
Patty, A., (11 September 2012) Tip of the iceberg: warning 1200 more education jobs to go Sydney Morning Herald
Patty, A.,(14 September 2012) NSW to slash $1.7 billion from education funding Sydney Morning Herald
Plank, D N. and Smith, B., (2007) Autonomous Schools: Theory, Evidence and Policy in Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy Helen F. Ladd and Edward Fiske (eds)
PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PWC) (2009) DET School-based employee related costs review – Interim Report
Smyth, J., (May 2011)The disaster of the ‘self‐managing school’ – genesis, trajectory, undisclosed agenda, and effects
Journal of Educational Administration and History 43(2):95-117
NSW Commission of Audit (January 2012) Interim Report into Public Sector Management
NSW Commission of Audit (May 2012) Final Report: Government Expenditure
Wylie, C.,(2012) Vital Connections: Why We Need More Than Self-Managing Schools

Maurie Mulheron was a teacher for 34 years, including 10 years as a high school principal. Throughout his working life he was an active member of the NSW Teachers Federation (NSWTF) for which he was awarded Life Membership.
In 2011 he was elected President of the NSWTF, taking up the position in 2012, and serving four terms until 2020.
Between 2016-2020, he was also Deputy Federal President of the Australian Education Union, to which he was awarded Life Membership in 2020.
Maurie played a central role in the schools funding, salaries, staffing and save TAFE campaigns throughout this period.
Internationally, Maurie has been active in the global campaign opposing the growing influence of corporate ‘edu-businesses’ and their attempts to commercialise and privatise public education.
Maurie is currently Director of the Centre for Public Education Research (CPER).
The Achievement of Public Education
Maurie Mulheron guides us through the creation of the public education system in Australia. He examines the essential role that public education plays within our democracy and explains its fundamental principles. He then alerts us to the reasons why it should be so valued, and protected, by us all . . .
It was the Canadian philosopher, John Ralston Saul, who argued that any nation that educates a large percentage of its children in private schools might no longer be able to call itself a true democracy. By international standards, Australia has a very high proportion of its children enrolled in private schools – schools that have legislated protection to exclude most children.
Ralston Saul (2001) argued, “As for public education, it is a simile for civilized democracy. You could say that public education is the primary foundation in any civilized democracy. That was one of the great discoveries of western civilization in its modern form in the middle of the 19th century. Any weakening of universal public education can only be a weakening of democracy.” [i]
One very important reason why we value public education, therefore, is because it is a democratic force and to weaken public education is to attack the very foundations of our democracy.
John Ralston Saul was right to remind us that the creation of public education was a deliberate act. It exists in this country because some enlightened people fought for it in the nineteenth century, and countless others have defended it ever since. Therefore, perhaps it is worth recalling our history. As the great Czech writer, Milan Kundera (1979), wrote, “The struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” [ii]
Any notions of a formal education system of schools in Australia began at the same time that the colony of New South Wales was started in 1788. Australia was a penal colony, effectively a large gaol of no return for the English and Irish prisoners who were transported here. From 1788 until 1868, over 160,000 convicts were transported to the colonies in Australia, the vast majority for petty crimes or political acts.
Contrary to popular myth, the main purpose of transportation was not to alleviate overcrowded gaols in England – it would have been much cheaper just to build more gaols than to send ships halfway around the world to unknown shores. But with the loss of the profitable colonies of north America, following the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783, transportation would give Britain a ready supply of slave labour, in the form of convicts, to build new colonies in order to maintain the expansion of the British Empire.
In many respects, starting life as a gaol meant that some officials, within the new penal colony, were worried about the moral and religious well-being of its children, although not necessarily their physical well-being. They thought the children of convicts would be influenced adversely by their criminal parents and so some rudimentary education was started, mainly through the work of the Church, with the Bible essentially the only printed curriculum document.
Tasmania was the first colony in the British Empire to introduce compulsory schooling in 1868. This was followed by Queensland which in 1869 also made schooling free.
England, at the time, had no real national system of education. Indeed, its Australian colonies may have been ahead in many ways.
Ireland did, of course, have the National system of schools, and this provided a model for many leaders of the fledgling, far-flung colonies. Why? Because Irish National Schools had strict rules regarding the boundaries between religious and non-religious education: designed as they were to take in both Protestant and Catholic children.
Victoria followed with the 1872 Education Act, becoming the first part of Australia to introduce “free, secular and compulsory” education. Victoria was motivated, in many respects, by its gold rushes of the 1850s-1860s. The colonial government wanted to take this new-found wealth and use it to turn Victoria into a successful industrial colony and for this to happen, the more enlightened leaders argued, they needed an educated and literate citizenry.
But the credit for public education in Australia, as we know it today, belongs to Henry Parkes.
Again picking up on the notion of moral education he stated, “How much better to teach the child than to punish the hardened youth; how much cheaper to provide schools than to build gaols; how much more creditable to us as a community to have a long roll of schoolmasters than a longer list of gaolers and turnkeys.” (Parkes, 1863) [iii]
Parkes pushed for a rigorous system of primary schools that was to be free, secular and compulsory.
Free, secular and compulsory were the guiding principles. Free meant that a child, no matter where he or she was born, deserved to be educated, regardless of parental income; secular -that a child must be enrolled in a public school regardless of faith, or no faith; and, compulsory – that society would take responsibility to educate all children, as well as build enough schools and employ enough teachers.
This was one of the world’s first commitments to ensuring that the job of educating young people was the responsibility of society.
Parkes’s great achievement in this policy area was the Public Instruction Act of 1880, which made schooling compulsory for all children between the ages of six to fourteen. This was one of the world’s first commitments to ensuring that the job of educating young people was the responsibility of society. William Wilkins became the first under-secretary in the new Department of Public Instruction. Wilkins had been greatly influenced by the Swiss educator, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, an advocate of child-centred learning.
Parkes was not without his faults, of course. He referred to the Irish as ‘jabbering baboons.’ But he did treat all religions equally and withdrew all funding from all church schools in 1882.
Of course, the other great political achievement of Parkes was nationhood, the creation of a modern unified nation through Federation. Parkes, the nation builder, saw his two major achievements as the replacing of faith-based private schools with a public education system and the uniting of six former colonies into the Commonwealth of Australia, as inextricably linked.
What is remarkable is that a free, secular and compulsory education system for all children is a modern and recent development, no older than about 150 years, not a long time when we consider that human society is many tens of thousands of years old.
And again, if we consider Kundera’s warning that the struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting, we can see that it is important to remember these foundation principles of public education: open to all regardless of race, religion, parental wealth, location, or ability. These are, of course, fundamental notions that underpin a democracy and we ignore them at our peril. If we accept that the right to education is a human right, then these notions bring obligations that society must meet. But when a nation’s education system reinforces social advantage, makes religion or race or ability or wealth distinguishing features of its schools, then these democratic rights are compromised.
There are more recent ideological threats to public education that have occurred in the last 30 years based on ‘choice theory’, the natural offspring of neo-liberal economics, which turns education into an individual choice; a commodity that can be purchased. These moves, to turn parents into consumers, undermine the very foundation of a modern, democratic education system.
Once this ideology is embedded in a nation’s psyche, we break down the notion of a citizenry that works for each other ( that is, a society that is about the common good) and replace it with less democratic, and more selfish, notions of advantage over others. Education becomes another market. This marketisation of education accentuates difference, the selling point, whether that be based on class or religion or race or wealth or ability. What markets create is a stratified education system of winners and losers, where individual advantage is valued more than social equality. But this, over time, has a serious negative social impact.
After all, the purpose of public schooling is about much more than the education of an individual. It has a profound social purpose, recognised 150 years ago, which has to do with nation building. One of its essential social benefits is to take individual students from a diverse range of backgrounds and create community, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
And this is the great moral purpose of public education: to achieve for all. Not for one. Not just for some. For all.
[i] Saul ,JR ‘In defence of public education’ – talk given to Canadian Teachers’ Federation, Whitehorse, Yukon, July 13, 2001
[ii] Kundera, M 1979, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting
[iii] Parkes,H -spoken in 1863 – published in Speeches On Various Occasions Connected With the Public Affairs of New South Wales 1848-1874, Melbourne, 1876, p.169.
References:
Kundera, M (1979), The Book of Laughter and Forgetting
The English translation was first published in the U.S.A. by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. in 1980. Asher, A and Vitale, S were the translators
Saul, John Ralston, (2001) ‘In defence of public education’ – talk given to Canadian Teachers’ Federation, Whitehorse, Yukon, July 13, 2001
Parkes,H (1876) Speeches On Various Occasions Connected With the Public Affairs of New South Wales 1848-1874, Melbourne, 1876, p.169.
Maurie Mulheron began his teaching career in 1978 in the outer south-western suburbs of Sydney and taught in a number of high schools in rural, regional and metropolitan New South Wales (NSW).
From 2001-2011, Maurie was Principal of Keira High School in the regional city of Wollongong, NSW. In 2011, he received an award from the NSW Department of Education for “Excellence in Leadership Demonstrated by a Principal”.
Maurie was elected to the full-time position of President of the NSW Teachers Federation President in 2012 and held that position until January 2020 leading the union’s many campaigns on salaries and working conditions, schools funding, against the privatisation of the vocational education sector, in defence of teaching standards, and in opposition to mass testing and league tables.
Maurie represented the NSW Teachers Federation on the Federal Executive of the national union, the Australian Education Union (AEU), for over twenty years. From 2015-2020, he held the position of Deputy Federal President of the AEU.
He also represented the AEU at a number of international forums and conferences including Education International’s Global Response Network which coordinated opposition to the growing commercialisation and privatisation of education.
Maurie served on the state government’s NSW Education Standard Authority’s Quality Teaching Committee and was a member of the University of Sydney’s Teacher Education Advisory Board (TEAB).
A New Social Contract Must Include Education
Sharan Burrow makes a significant case for why a new social contract (internationally and nationally) must be created and suggests why quality public education for all has to be an integral part of any such new world view. . .
In too many nations the social contract has been broken and the global institutions established to underpin and reinforce rights, equality, inclusive growth and global stability have contributed to the convergence of crises that the world now faces.
Massive inequality – income, race and gender – was already driving an age of anger with civil unrest and distrust in democracy. Along with the destruction resulting from extreme weather events driven by climate change, the risk to economies and societies was already clear. Adding to that, we face the choices associated with the best and worst impacts of technology devoid of a rights base.
As the COVID-19 pandemic hit country after country, the global groundswell of public acclamation of health, education and other frontline workers carries a powerful message for governments, many of which made political choices over the years to restrict crucial investment in health, education, child care and aged care in order to appear fiscally prudent. But, will that groundswell be answered with serious investment in recovery plans and sustained levels of public expenditure that ensures future resilience?
In addition to the continued staffing of schools and preschools which remained open for the children of frontline workers, the heroic efforts of teachers in internet-serviced communities were the subject of sustained praise from parents everywhere. In the face of the prolonged challenge of ‘home schooling’ for parents, the appreciation for the work of teachers skyrocketed. However, the global challenge to fund quality public schooling for all is enormous. Prior to the pandemic, UNESCO (2016) said that the world needed an extra 69 million teachers to meet the 2030 education goal. Teachers do not grow on trees – educators must be educated and supported with decent pay, conditions and facilities. Education has been, and will always be, the foundation of social and economic progress.
Education has been, and will always be, the foundation of social and economic progress.
As we marked the World Day for Child Labour on 12 June, 2020 the risk of staggering increases in vulnerable children was evident. According to UN estimates(2020), more than half a billion children worldwide have lost their access to education as a result of Coronavirus lockdowns. Many won’t return to the classrooms after the pandemic, with girls more likely than boys to drop out.
These inequalities are truly shocking, but not unexpected. We know from experience and recent International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysis that major epidemics often exacerbate pre-existing income inequality. And still almost 50% of the world’s people lack access to the internet. (Fuceri, D. 2020)
The Managing Director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, rates education as a key policy priority.
‘As they move forward, all governments will need to gear up for a more inclusive recovery. This means taking the right measures, especially on fiscal stimulus, education, and fintech. And it means sharing ideas, learning from others, and fostering a greater sense of solidarity.
If there is one lesson from this crisis, it’s that our society is only as strong as its weakest member. This should be our compass to a more resilient post-pandemic world.’ (Georgieva, K. 2020)
The fight trade unions are taking on everywhere is for a new social contract that sees people and the planet at the heart of economic development.
The pandemic has brutally exposed the flaws of the current global economic system, in health, in education, employment, social protection and virtually every other aspect of the economy. International Trade Union Confederation ( ITUC) global polling (ITUC. 2018) ) https://www.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-Global-Poll-2018 reveals that prior to the pandemic, 59% of people in work were just about managing financially, struggling to make ends meet, going without essentials or falling into debt. 23% of people felt that their job was insecure.
With the world economy in intensive care, recovery and resilience must be the prime concerns: recovery to regenerate jobs and sustainable growth, and resilience to fix the failings, and precarity, of the current system and to prepare and equip the world to end the scourge of inequality
Massive investment in health, education, childcare, aged care and social protection must be at the core of recovery to generate jobs and build resilience. And existing deficits in infrastructure, education, connectivity and other areas have to be addressed. With the rapid emergence of new technologies, the need for education and training is huge, yet current levels of investment in education fall woefully short of what is required.
With recovery must come resilience. The ITUC’s annual Global Rights Index (ITUC 2020) has tracked the deepening multi-year trend of the erosion of workers’ rights and growing precarity in employment. These trends certainly contributed to the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with so many people having no job security or safety net and facing the choice between continuing to work, or poverty. Where workers’ rights to organise in unions and bargain collectively for decent wages, benefits and conditions are respected, and where informal work is formalised, then resilience is built in.
Workplace safety standards, including in schools and other educational institutions, are often substandard or even non-existent and the mortality and morbidity rates have long been a global scandal. Many types of workplace are actual, or potential, transmission hubs for the new SARS virus and other communicable diseases. Where people return to work after the initial or future shutdowns, occupational health and safety systems are crucial to protect workers and the community.
And if ever there was an argument for the equality and inclusion of public education, the global attention that has laid bare racism and racial injustice is an alarming reminder that everyone’s children have fundamental human rights.
For trade unions recovery plans must include:
- Job protection and job creation
- Income protection, minimum living wages and incomes with collective bargaining
- Occupational health and safety including global standards and provisions for safe workplaces
- Adequately funded public health, education and care
- Equal economic participation of women
- Universal Social protection to build resilience
- Just transitions for climate and technology
- Responsible business conduct with mandated due diligence for human rights and environmental standards
- Government accountability with social dialogue and the provision of privacy rights.
And financing the recovery requires a national and global solidarity that shifts the parameters for financing and debt, through:
- An extension of debt relief for the poorest and most vulnerable nations to two years, with the only conditionality being investment in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations. 2016)
- Agreement on a broader scope for Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) (IMF. 1969) with liquidity swaps for development in the poorest countries aligned with the SDGs(United Nations. 2016) global social protection fund with a five-year guarantee for the poorest of nations to avoid destitution, build a basic economy and ensure resilience
- Taxation measures that establish a minimum corporate tax threshold, eliminate tax havens and illicit trade flows and establish new mechanisms including the long overdue financial transactions tax, a digital tax and a wealth tax.
- Massive investments in infrastructure, industry policy for climate transition, health, education and care and development and repair of eco-systems as well as digital connectivity for all.
These measures will require a medium to long term approach to debt that marries a medium to long term approach to investment. It will require a dramatic shift in economic priorities. There is no lack of financial resources in the world, only a lack of political will.
We can build a better world, but it will require the power of people to effect change. If delivered by highly qualified teachers, public education for all leads to everyone’s social and economic advancement and, as such, is fundamental to such vital change. Education has never been more important.
References:
Furceri, D., P. Loungani, J. D. Ostry, and P. Pizzuto, 2020, ”Will Covid-19 Affect Inequality? Evidence from past pandemics,” CEPR Press, Covid Economics, Issue 12, May, pp. 1https://voxeu.org/article/covid-19-will-raise-inequality-if-past-pandemics-are-guide
see also –
https://blogs.imf.org/2020/05/11/how-pandemics-leave-the-poor-even-farther-behind/
Georgieva, Kristalina 2020, “The Global Economic Reset—Promoting a More Inclusive Recovery” IMFBlog June 11 2020.https://blogs.imf.org/2020/06/11/the-global-economic-reset-promoting-a-more-inclusive-recovery/
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) Global Poll 2018 “Global Poll: Governments’ failure to address low wages and insecure jobs threatens trust in politics and democracy” 02.12.2018 https://www.ituc-csi.org/ITUC-Global-Poll-2018
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) Global Rights Index 2020 (18.06.2020) https://www.ituc-csi.org/ituc-global-rights-index-2020
Special drawing rights (created 1969) (SDRs)
[These are supplementary foreign exchange reserve assets defined and maintained by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). SDRs are units of account for the IMF, and not a currency per se. They represent a claim to currency held by IMF member countries for which they may be exchanged. https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/14/51/Special-Drawing-Right-SDR
UNESCO 2016 “Close to 69 million new teachers needed to reach 2030 education goals”
Unite Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Media Services 05.10.2016
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/close_to_69_million_new_teachers_needed_to_reach_2030_educat/
United Nations 2020 “Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID 19 on children” 15.04.2020
https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/policy_brief_on_covid_impact_on_children_16_april_2020.pdf
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (1 January 2016)
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
[17 interconnected goals to be achieved by 2030]
Sharan Burrow is General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, representing 207 million workers in 163 countries and territories with 331 national affiliates.
Sharan studied teaching at the University of NSW and began her teaching career in high schools around country NSW.
She became an Organiser for the NSW Teachers Federation, based in Bathurst, and was President of the Bathurst Trades and Labour Council during the 1980s.
Sharan was elected Senior Vice-President of the NSW Teachers’ Federation and became President of the Australian Education Union (AEU) in 1992.
Sharan was Vice-President of Education International from 1995 to 2000. Education International is the international organisation of education unions representing 24 million members worldwide.
Sharan was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) from 2000 – 2010.
She is a passionate advocate and campaigner for social justice, women’s rights, the environment and labour law reforms, and has led union negotiations on major economic reforms and labour rights campaigns in Australia and globally.
Sharan is a proud life member of the NSW Teachers Federation