Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3847 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It is very important that members in this place be aware of the dangers. I understand the situation at the moment, Mr Speaker, but I also think that, if we do not keep ourselves alert to the logical extension of this philosophy and this approach to education, step by step we will lose something that is probably seen by most Australians to be the most valuable social justice aspect of our society - that at least our young people have equal access to educational opportunities.

The concern is that, taken to its extreme, this model leads to schools being seen as small businesses and therefore principals or boards as financial managers. I heard Mr Stefaniak say that most of the principals are very good financial managers, so that terminology is already in use. Their effectiveness, therefore, could be seen to be measured by their ability to manage the finances of the school. Obviously, at the moment principals are judged on their educational abilities and, to some extent, their management abilities. The danger here is what happens when such an economic imperative is put on a principal.

Devolution of responsibility to individual schools came out of concern for social good, and it has been around for a long time, as Mr Stefaniak noted. However, this is something else. This is not where school-based management originally came from. This is quite different. This is coming from an economic imperative. These two concerns - the social good and the economic imperative - create a tension. We already know the results of that tension in the UK and in New Zealand. The economic imperative wins.

It is very interesting what happens socially. I have raised this issue before and I will repeat it. In New Zealand, when greater power was given to boards, there was a significant increase in the expulsion of Maori and working-class kids from school. That is to do with who goes on boards and powerful groups having power and looking after their own interests within a society, a facility or an institution such as a school. Obviously, the goal of social justice and equity has not been met with that particular model of school-based management. Goals of social justice and equity are more difficult to measure and more expensive to implement than the financial management aspect of a school. What was also seen clearly from the UK and New Zealand experience was that a great deal of choice was given to parents as part of this model. I do not have a problem with choice, but when areas have unequal socioeconomic or demographic features better-off parents always choose to move upward, so that schools in poorer areas are left with the more disadvantaged students. That is obviously not desirable.

This model also has very interesting implications for curriculum. This is ironic in a way, because school-based management was about devolution to schools of curriculum development based on very good principles. When you push this model and the economic imperative to the extreme, you end up with the curriculum having less diversity. If the school has to sell itself, it will want to sell itself to the middle-class parents who will pay the fees. It will therefore be able to attract sponsorship better, and the middle-class parents will buy the line that the school needs to focus on the narrow academic subjects more, because they all want their kids to be lawyers and doctors. This so-called enhanced school-based management - I doubt whether we can seriously use the word "enhanced" -

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .