Self-governing schools:
The big lie

The policy of self-governing schools aims to force increased 
responsibility for funding onto school councils, who under the scheme are 
to be made up of representatives of businesses that sponsor the school, 
parents, teachers and the principal.

The principal has the power to hire and fire teachers and other staff. 
Staffing levels and the level of qualification of teachers employed are 
determined by the amount of sponsorship and other funds that can be raised 
by the councils to supplement the government budget allocated to each 
school in the program.

Essentially it is part of the Kennett Government's drive to deregulate and 
privatise education in Victoria.

The minority of schools in wealthier areas will be able to find more 
sponsorship dollars, albeit while under the restraining hand and self-
interest of their private sector sponsors.

The majority of schools in working class areas will struggle to gain 
private sector income and will be forced to cut back on spending, including 
on staff, and have larger class sizes. Those schools that cannot compete 
will have to close.

To kick-start the program interested schools were asked to make submissions 
to a Schools of the Third Millennium consultation.

An analysis of submissions to the consultation, now released under Freedom 
of Information, shows that there was little, if any, support for the 
concept of self-governing schools.

The Kennett Government's self-governing schools program was launched in 
Victoria on the back of a big lie, reports John Graham, Research Officer 
from the Australian Education Union, Victorian Branch.

"Yet the Minister used these submissions to justify the Government's 
introduction of self-governing schools legislation."

There were only 200 responses to the statewide survey of schools (12%). Of 
those responses, only a handful indicated they were enthusiastic about the 
Government's self-governing schools package.

Seventy percent of schools expressing an opinion on the issue were were 
opposed to being given any additional responsibilities.

Of the 30 per cent who did say they would like some increase in powers, an 
overwhelming majority wanted to address only one or two specific issues.

Eighty-five percent were opposed to, often strongly, or expressed concern 
over specialist centres.

The drive to increase business sponsorship of schools was another area 
where the vast majority of schools (80 percent) was either opposed or 
indicated major reservations about its impact.

The most common issues raised in the submissions — the need for adequate 
funding and a concern about equity — were generated by the schools 
themselves despite the "loaded" questions they had to answer.

"To sum up", said John Graham, "schools indicated by a large majority that 
they wanted no additional responsibilities, were opposed to specialist 
centres, had major reservations about any increase in business sponsorship 
and saw inadequate funding and a concern for inequity as their priorities.

"If this had been a genuine consultation where the opinions of those 
consulted determined subsequent policy decisions, there would have been no 
self-governing schools legislation and no self-governing schools."

As one submission said:

"We are surprised that you continue to seek our opinion on an issue in 
which much of the direction to be taken appears to have already been 
resolved."

Far from a groundswell of support for self-governing schools, the clear 
message from the submissions was forget about `autonomy' and just give us, 
and the public system, adequate resources to focus on our core purpose — 
education.

* * *

Acknowledgements:AEU News

Back to index page