The ACT Government has embarked upon a bold and risky experiment in schools management. It has put forward proposals to devolve to individual schools far greater power over the running of schools. Done well, the experiment could lead to better education for the same amount of money. Done badly, it could result in waste, inefficiencies and worse education.
The Department of Education has wisely staged its proposals. It is further encouraged by the fact that over the past 20 years, curriculum development has been devolved to schools with great success. However, it is one thing to devolve an inherently educational matter to schools where staff are skilled in education. It is quite another to devolve things like cleaning contracts, building maintenance and school hiring. These require non-education skills. They require a range of management skills which may not be in all schools. That is why they must be introduced slowly.
Some of the devolution ideas, however, could take effect more quickly. These include the balance between teaching and non-teaching staff, the extent to which relief teachers are used, and some appointments. These are matters over which present staff are likely to have more skills.
There are several advantages of devolution. If schools retain savings they make through shrewder use of resources, they will have an incentive to make those savings. The savings are then converted to better education. If, however, central office manages things, it makes no difference how well or badly decisions are made at the school level, so there is little incentive to manage well.
Further, if management is devolved more to schools, there is greater incentive to take care and maintain things. There would be ownership of the school by the school. If central office manages, the tendency is to think that if anything is broken or goes wrong, it does not matter because central office will fix it.
People on the ground close to the action can often see things better. They can see the things that need fixing and that there are often better ways of doing things. Not giving them the chance to get on with the job often leads to frustration or apathy. Giving them a chance leads to empowerment and fulfilment.
Devolved management of community use of schools with the revenue coming to the school is, once again, likely to result in greater incentives to do it well. It will result in both better use of school buildings by the community and better returns for schools, which should improve education.
It is important that the program does not become a mere cost-saving exercise. Its stated aim is to improve education. That goal should not be lost.
The downside will come with some loss of economies of scale. Further, it is likely that with less central control poor, ill-informed decision-making is not picked up and that smaller units do not have the range of skills needed for effective management. It is also possible that staff management in smaller units can be unduly influenced by personal predilections.
It is also likely that some inequities between schools might arise. If this happens, it is the role of central office to take some equalising action, much like the Grants Commission works with the states. On balance, though, the proposals should be cautiously welcomed.