Devolution of Responsibility to Queensland Schools: Clarifying the Rhetoric, Critiquing the Reality
| Published date | 01 April 1992 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239210020471 |
| Date | 01 April 1992 |
| Author | Clarrie Burke |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Devolution of Responsibility to
Queensland Schools: Clarifying
the Rhetoric, Critiquing the
Reality
Clarrie Burke
Queensland University of
Technology,
Australia
Devolution
of
Responsibility
33
The lack of
a
tradition of local participation
in
schooling in Queensland is rooted
in the history of education in Queensland and in Australia more generally[1].
According to Matheson, Director-General, Queensland Department of
Education, "Australians have never had the fundamental experience of grass-
roots democracy that characterized settlements in England.. .at a time when
fundamental democratic ideas and processes were being worked out"[2, p.
7].
Relating this to education, such landmark studies as those of
Kandel[3]
in 1938
and Butts[4] in 1955 were critical of the centralized system of state education
in Australia. These studies have consistently pointed to preoccupation with
uniform
policy,
centrally administered, as a means to "equality of opportunity",
maintenance of certain educational standards, and in encouraging settlements
in
remote areas by the provision of
equal
educational facilities, school curriculum
and teaching methods, standards of achievement, and quality of school
staff.
Out of this centralized approach developed the belief in almost complete
separation of
schools
from the community and, in turn, discouragement of local
community involvement in decision making related to the administration of
schools.
As
Matheson has pointed out,
"We
have known only
a
form of elective
democracy devoid of personal involvement for most of the community.
Community participation in aspects of the activities of our social institutions,
such as school, is a re-education in fundamental democracy"[2, p. 7].
Despite the lack of tradition of community involvement in schooling, it is not
as though the prospect has been ignored or overlooked in national studies.
A watershed in the development of devolution of responsibility in school
decision making occurred with the publication of the major national report,
Schools
in Australia, by the Karmel Committee in 1973. The Committee
considered the prospect of devolution of
responsibility,
equality, diversity, choice
in schooling, and community involvement. The Report proposed that a more
decentralized, grass-roots approach to the control over the operation of schools
is clearly necessary. This proposition stemmed from the Committee's belief
that school effectiveness would be enhanced when those entrusted with making
decisions and those responsible for implementing them are one and the same
people[5,
p. 10].
In Queensland, however, no clear Government policy statement had emerged
until
the late 1980s despite a specific recommendation
on High School
Advisory
Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 30 No. 4,
1992,
pp. 33-52. © MCB
University Press, 0957-8234
Journal of
Educational
Administration
30,4
34
Councils (HSAC) made by the Parliamentary Select Committee of Education
in Queensland in 1978[6, p. 18].
While the proposed
HSAC
was intended to be purely advisory, nominations
made by the principal, who was also chairperson, would appear to have been
greatly favoured. Be that as it may, the concept of HSAC was, nonetheless,
indicative of increasing public recognition in Queensland of the need for
involvement of interested parties in decision-making processes affecting:
(1) the school curriculum and associated resource material;
(2) the textbook list for each year;
(3) innovations for the school;
(4) school rules;
(5) school uniform;
(6) discipline problems referred to the council by the Principal;
(7) any other matters referred to the council by the Principal; and
(8) any matters, which a majority of the members present and voting shall
determine, should be placed on the agenda[6, p. 19].
Interestingly the Queensland Government showed its hand
by
taking
no
specific
or official action on these Parliamentary Select Committee's recommendations
at the time.
In
1987,
however, an official document, entitled
The
Agenda for Excellence[7],
was issued by the Director of Secondary Education, setting out guidelines for
the
modus operandi
of Queensland secondary schools. While no mention was
made of participative management or representative governing bodies in
Queensland schools, in the section on "Curriculum Offerings/Organization"
the Department stated that "A process exists to determine a philosophy and
a set of objectives for the
institution"
(p.
13).
And one
of the
"quality
indicators"
listed for this is "Involvement in the process by all those who have a stake
in the institution, i.e. students, parents, teachers and the wider community"
(p.
13).
Yet in a
later
section,
"Community and
School"
(pp.
38-44),
no
reference
is made to community representation or participation in school policy making
and governance beyond:
Parents being encouraged to make constructive suggestions on school policy:
— through P & C Associations
— through consultative committees
— through proactive school initiatives (p. 42).
Furthermore, Queensland P & C Associations were forced to adopt a non-
engaging role by the then current Education Act:
An association shall not exercise any authority over the teaching
staff,
or interfere in any
way with control or management of any State school (Queensland Education Act S13).
To continue reading
Request your trial