2015 marks 40 years of publication of Independence, the biannual journal of the
Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia. To celebrate, AHISA presents for
its members and friends a special series of interviews and essays that provide insights into
independent schooling and educational leadership.
JUNE 2015: BILL DANIELS
BILL DANIELS served as Executive Director of the Independent Schools Council of Australia (ISCA)
from 2001 until his retirement in March 2015. Prior to joining ISCA, Mr Daniels had extensive
experience in education policy development and program delivery at the national level. While
working for the federal Department of Education, he was head of the Student Assistance and
Indigenous Programs Division from 1990 to 1994 and head of the Schools Division from 1994 to
1998. He also served for five years as Chief of Staff to Senator Sir John Carrick AC KCMG when Sir
John was the federal Minister for Education and the Minister for National Development and
Energy in the Fraser administration. Mr Daniels continues to serve the independent sector as Chair
of the Association of Independent Schools of NSW Institute.
AHISA invited Mr Daniels to reflect on 40 years of engagement with independent schools – as a
departmental officer and as an advocate for the sector.
The challenges of independence
BILL DANIELS
Looking back on some 40 years of working with or for the independent schools sector, I can
describe the root cause of the very best and the most difficult aspects of this long relationship in
one word – ‘independence’.
Governments find independence difficult to deal with. One source of frustration for them in
working with independent schools is the lack of a ready-made hierarchy of command and control.
I recall a discussion with a Shadow Minister for Education, who told me that he was quite
uncomfortable about independent schools. The example he used was that if there was a problem
with a Catholic school the Minister could simply contact the Director of Catholic Education and the
problem would be fixed immediately. However, if there was a problem with an independent
school, there was no-one the Minister could call to have the problem attended to. My advice to
the Shadow Minister was that if he called the Principal of the independent school, the problem
would probably be attended to instantly – without the need to go through a bureaucratic process.
He was surprised at my response.
Another example of this lack of understanding of how independent schools operate is the Building
the Education Revolution (BER) Program. Just prior to the announcement of the program by then
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a senior official contacted me to convey the Government’s concerns
that the independent sector may not be able to spend the BER money wisely and on time. My
advice was that the independent sector was very good at achieving the maximum possible value
for the public funds put at its disposal and that the Government could rest assured that the BER
money would be efficiently and wisely spent. As history proved.
The independent sector received some $1.8 billion under the BER. The combination of expertise
across the sector – in the Block Grant Authorities, in the Associations of Independent Schools
(AISs) and in the schools themselves in terms of facilities management and master planning –
meant that independent schools were able to meet the ambitious time frames for project delivery,
critical if the BER was to have the desired stimulatory economic impact.
In many ways, the independent sector’s implementation of the BER was a model of government
program delivery. The scandals of management fee skimming and project delays that plagued
delivery of the BER in the government sector were avoided, and top value for money achieved: the
independent sector delivered BER projects at the least cost per square metre. Just as important in
meeting the economic objectives of the BER was that the sector attracted significant additional
private investment to top up BER funding – around $370 million in private contribution from
independent school communities helped underwrite the stimulus to the economy.
There are 1,100 independent schools in Australia. Not all of them are perfect all of the time –
indeed some of them can present quite difficult challenges for governments, and sometimes they
challenge those who represent them to governments! However, independence is a proven
formula and the runs are on the board.
Trust vs control
Clearly there are people in Parliament House and government departments who do not
understand the independent sector very well. Some do not wish to see beyond their ideology to
the students and families that make independent school communities such an important part of
education provision in Australia; some are simply more comfortable in creating regulations to
‘control’ independent schools. Perhaps they could benefit from immersing themselves more
deeply in understanding the governance and the management of independent schools.
It is quite extraordinary that more than 10,000 members of the community voluntarily devote
their time and energies to sit on the boards of these independent schools. Not only do these
people want to do it, but they do it with great expertise, commitment and passion. This is a real
measure of independence at work.
Governments would be better advised to trust those who run and govern independent schools
rather than over-regulate them.
At the same time, it is important that those in the independent sector accord Parliamentarians and
departmental officers genuine respect, even gratitude. It has to be remembered that national
education policies are developed within the political realities of a federation. Our founding fathers
certainly designed a constitution that has made it difficult to achieve ‘national’ policies in the area
of school education. Adding complexity to this context is the decades-long bitter contest over
‘State Aid’. Despite the fact that funding for non-government schools has been accepted and
2
INDEPENDENCE 2015 SPECIAL EDITION: BILL DANIELS
supported by all Commonwealth Governments for more than 50 years, it is still strongly opposed
by some in the community.
Without being naïve about it, my experience is that the vast majority of Commonwealth Ministers
for Education, Secretaries of the Department and senior officials have been intelligent, committed,
reasonable human beings who have tried to improve education outcomes. I cannot think of
anyone who actively sought to diminish the national objective – upheld by all administrations – to
create a better education system.
The changing role of the Commonwealth in school education
There have been three distinct phases in the Commonwealth’s role in influencing Australian
schooling.
Phase 1 was quite dramatic, marked first by the introduction of general recurrent per student
grants for non-government schools in 1970 and then, under the Whitlam government, the
establishment in 1973 of the Commonwealth Schools Commission and, along with it, extension of
general recurrent funding to the government schools sector.
The Schools Commission was not only responsible for the administration of general recurrent
grants; it helped develop Commonwealth-funded targeted programs for disadvantaged schools,
special education, teacher professional development and innovation. To people the Commission,
the Commonwealth employed – for the first time – large numbers of qualified and skilled
professionals from the schools sector as policy officers.
The Commonwealth had effectively bought its way into Australian classrooms.
Just as Phase 1 began with the establishment of the Schools Commission, Phase 2 began with its
demise. John Dawkins, Minister for Education in the Hawke administration, abolished the
Commission in 1988 and its functions and staff were transferred to a mainstream Commonwealth
department.
One of the significant impacts of closing down the Commission was that the Government no
longer had to deal with annual formal public advice from an ‘independent’ Commission about the
financial and other needs of the schools sector. For years that had been a source of great irritation
to central agencies and the smallish Commonwealth Department of Education, and to the
Commonwealth Ministers who had to deal with the Commission’s reports.
Phase 2 lasted for some 20 years, during which time the Commonwealth continued to wield
influence on school education through its funding programs, as administered by the
Commonwealth Education Department, and politically via the council of federal, state and
territory ministers of education (under various titles).
The Commonwealth continued its strong push to improve literacy and numeracy during these
years and still had expertise from staff recruited during the Schools Commission period. As
Education Minister in the Howard administration, The Hon Dr David Kemp was absolutely
committed to improving literacy and numeracy outcomes and, against the wishes of most states
and territories, used the Commonwealth’s funding muscle to impose a national testing regime.
Gradually the educational professional staff that had been recruited during the days of the Schools
Commission moved on and were replaced by generalist program managers. Administration of
financial programs at times became more important than the objectives of the programs
3
INDEPENDENCE 2015 SPECIAL EDITION: BILL DANIELS
themselves. One positive was that the delivery of many targeted programs was outsourced to
Catholic authorities, AISs and state and territory governments. It was in the interests of all these
organisations to make the best use of the funds.
Phase 3 was initiated under the watch of The Hon Julia Gillard, first as Minister for Education in the
Rudd administration and then as Prime Minister. The creation of the Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), the Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership (AITSL) and, to a lesser extent, Education Services Australia changed the way the
Commonwealth developed and implemented policy. Even though these institutions may have
been seeded under the Howard administration (for example, The Hon Dr Brendan Nelson
launched the then National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership in 2004), their
evolution under the Rudd administration signalled a new way of doing business. Power – and a
great deal of influence – shifted from the federal Department of Education to these reasonably
well resourced bodies, which had representation from all school sectors on their boards.
The launch of the My School website opened a new opportunity for the Commonwealth to
influence school education: for the first time, basic data on financial inputs and performance
outcomes were readily available to the world at large. While My School suffered initial credibility
issues because of poor quality data – and continues to suffer because of the media focus on
NAPLAN results and the invidious school comparisons – it has proved a powerful policy tool for the
Commonwealth and an equally powerful accountability measure.
A further element in this third Phase was the Review of Funding for Schooling, commonly known
as the ‘Gonski review’. Despite the Australian Government’s rhetoric, the Gonski review essentially
became a battleground for Commonwealth-State financial arrangements. The Commonwealth’s
policy effort was centred within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet – not the
Education Department. PM&C, Treasury and Finance called the shots. The turbulent political
environment at that time also meant that good public policy took a back seat.
The reality is that the so-called needs-based funding model developed as a result of the Gonski
review only applies directly to independent schools, while government and non-government
school systems continue to have the freedom to redistribute Commonwealth funding – a freedom
they have enjoyed since the 1970s. Meanwhile, most of the Commonwealth’s targeted programs
have gone; the funds have been used to pay for the new model. The result is that the
Commonwealth’s power to influence Australian classrooms, both directly and indirectly, has
diminished significantly – but the cries for more funds from the various players continue to grow
louder and louder.
Gonski and beyond
The objective underpinning the Gonski model is to bring all schools close to a national Schooling
Resource Standard. This cannot be achieved without significantly more funding.
The Abbott government has committed to indexation of general recurrent grants linked to CPI
beyond 2017. The ALP’s position on the quantum of additional funding is confused. The most
realistic scenario is that, unless governments compensate fully for cost increases in schools,
parents in the independent and Catholic sectors will be faced with heftier increases in fees.
It takes a great deal of time, commitment, energy and good will to design a school funding model,
irrespective of which government takes responsibility for the initiative. The SES model, which
4
INDEPENDENCE 2015 SPECIAL EDITION: BILL DANIELS
applied to non-government schools only, took three years of solid policy work prior to its
implementation in 2001. So did the Gonski model. There is very little evidence that the Coalition is
seriously looking at alternatives at the moment and the ALP in opposition simply does not have
the resources to do the necessary policy work.
In theory, the Federation White Paper process may throw up a new direction for schools funding.
However, any proposal will be costly in terms of political capital, as perceived winners and losers
will be very public in expressing their views. My best guess is that the Commonwealth will
continue to use the current model for a few years yet, perhaps with a few modifications, but will
walk away from the objective of providing funding to achieve a Schooling Resource Standard.
The debate about the future of the federation and responsibility for schools is extremely
important. Even if there is little movement prior to the next federal election, putting a range of
options out for consideration by governments and the community will inevitably lead to further
debate and further uncertainty. To effectively engage in these debates, it is important for the
independent schools sector to have a very clear and unified view about what arrangements best
serve its interests. A strong, committed and continuing role by the Commonwealth in the funding
of independent schools is essential.
Who would ever have predicted in the 1970s that the independent sector’s share of enrolments
would grow from four to 15 per cent – and with such diversity in schools? Clearly families want a
say in how their children are educated; they want greater independence from the one-size-fits-all
approach that almost inevitably characterises government service delivery.
While ISCA, the AISs and AHISA will continue to advocate strongly for the values inherent in
independence, the most effective action that independent schools can take is to make sure that
their local federal MPs are an integral part of their school community. This ensures that on the
backbenches and in the party rooms of Parliament House in Canberra, and ultimately in the
Government and Opposition ministerial suites, these schools and their needs are known and
understood.
The qualities so evident in the independent sector – autonomy, flexibility, diversity and community
engagement – serve Australian education and Australian families very well. Demonstrating these
qualities to politicians is an excellent ‘insurance policy’ that comes without strings attached. 
5
INDEPENDENCE 2015 SPECIAL EDITION: BILL DANIELS