1
About the inquiry
1.1
The task
Victoria’s future economic and social prosperity will depend critically on how well it
develops its human capital. Indeed, with Victoria’s economy reliant largely on created
strengths, access to a highly skilled and innovative workforce will be of paramount
importance for future living standards.
Human capital development occurs in many ways and is subject to various policy
influences. However, a high-performing school system that provides a platform for
subsequent and more specific human capital development is fundamental.
Against both national and international benchmarks, Victoria’s school system delivers
good results for most students (chapter 2).
Even so, and despite considerable reform effort and substantial increases in total
spending per student, various indicators suggest that the Victorian system could
perform better.

Overall student achievement in the key areas of numeracy and literacy appears to
have improved little in absolute terms over the past decade, with Victoria (and
other Australian jurisdictions) lagging considerably behind the top tier of countries.

There is considerable variation in student outcomes across and in Victorian schools.

Victoria’s system does not perform as well as systems in some other countries in
giving all students the same opportunity to realise their educational potential. As
well as students from low socio-economic backgrounds, Indigenous students, those
with disabilities, and those living in regional areas, are not always well served by the
current system.

Likewise, a recent Parliamentary Committee found that gifted and talented
students have been neglected by the system, with significant potential to excel
often not identified or nurtured (ETC 2012).

Despite efforts to improve student engagement at the upper-secondary level,
there has been only a marginal improvement in the Year 12 retention rate over the
last decade, and no increase since 2008 (VAGO 2012c, vii).

The most recent Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey indicated that only a little more
than half of working age Victorians had adequate literacy skills (the worst of all
States except Tasmania), and that nationally more than 40 per cent of 20-24 year
olds were in the lowest two levels for document literacy (ABS 2008). This is despite
the fact that, at that time, some 85 per cent of this age group held year 12 or
equivalent qualifications (Victorian Government 2010, 9).
There is also conjecture that significant numbers of schools are ‘coasting’, that is student
educational achievement is improving at a slower than expected rate, and that there is
thus substantial latent capacity for performance improvement in the system (chapter 2).
In light of these performance shortcomings, the Victorian Government has outlined a
commitment to lift Victoria’s education system into the top global tier over the next ten
years (DEECD 2012a, 1). And it has signalled a further ‘reform wave’ focused on
improving the quality of teaching and school leadership, and extending and refining
past initiatives to facilitate more devolved and accountable decision making in
government schools. The future performance of Victorian schools will also be influenced
ABOUT THE INQUIRY
1
by national reforms in these areas (chapter 4) and by the new school funding model
that ensues from the recent Review of Funding for Schooling (Gonski et al. 2011).
As the Victorian Government’s policy documents make clear, the new round of school
reforms will require careful implementation that draws on the expertise of key
stakeholders. In this context, the Government has directed the Commission to
undertake a public inquiry into school devolution and accountability. Amongst other
things, the Commission has been asked to:

identify a framework and principles to guide thinking about autonomy and
accountability in the government school system

examine current arrangements in that system, including the extent of autonomy,
and regulation and practices that may limit autonomy

consider options for providing more autonomy — with reference to approaches in
other school systems — and identify the benefits and costs of those options,
including for disadvantaged students

identify regulatory, institutional and accountability arrangements to support a more
autonomous government school system

examine the scope to complement autonomy policies with greater choice for
parents and children in the government school system.
The full terms of reference are provided at the front of this report. The Commission’s
inquiry is intended to complement a review of school governance arrangements now
underway in the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD).
1.2
The Commission’s approach
1.2.1
Some overarching considerations
Terminology
As is evident from the terms of reference, the words ‘devolution’ and ‘autonomy’ tend
to be used interchangeably — and sometimes in an absolute sense when in reality
what is being referred to is the degree of decision-making responsibility that resides at
the school level. In other words, there is a spectrum of ‘devolution’ or ‘autonomy’.
Also, while devolution is typically seen as involving a shift of tasks and accountabilities
from the centre to the school level, it can entail a shift to the middle (region or group of
schools) level of the system. Indeed, as this report explains, allocating tasks and
accountabilities to the right level in the system, and strengthening governance
structures to hold actors to account, is key to achieving better performance outcomes.
The precise meaning of ‘devolution’ and ‘autonomy’ will therefore be context specific.
Accordingly, the Commission has not sought to develop a ‘one-size-fits-all’ definition of
the terms, nor to always use one term rather than the other. And where there could be
ambiguity, it has provided context-specific clarification.
The objective of reform
The guiding objective underpinning the Commission’s assessments in this report has
been to lift the performance of Victoria’s school system. Its particular focus has been on
the development of recommendations to help give best effect to the new autonomy
regime for government schools (see below). However, in an environment where many
2
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
parents can choose where to send their children to school, reforms that improve the
performance of government schools should also help to keep their non-government
counterparts up to the mark.
As the Government’s objective of lifting Victoria’s education system into the top global
tier exemplifies, ‘performance improvement’ is typically equated with the delivery of
better student outcomes. In this context, it is not just average levels of achievement
that matter. The disparity in student outcomes — an indicator of how well the system is
meeting the needs of disadvantaged students — is also important.
Yet the commonly used measures of student outcomes are not without their problems
(box 1.1). Moreover, outcomes cannot be assessed in isolation from the costs of
achieving them. Consideration of costs as well as benefits is particularly relevant given
the recent experience of flat-lining student performance despite significantly increased
per student investment in the school system.
Irrespective of precisely how ‘success’ is determined, the Commission emphasises that
greater autonomy for government schools is a means to pursue better outcomes, not a
goal in its own right — and should be judged accordingly. Also, greater emphasis on
devolved decision making is intended to deliver better value for money from the
resources available in the government school system, not to cut costs. Hence, whether
any fiscal dividend is retained by the system or used for other purposes is a separate
question (chapter 5).
1.2.2
A targeted set of proposals …
The new autonomy regime for Victoria’s government schools is set in an extensive wider
schools reform agenda at the state and national levels. In formulating its proposals, the
Commission has been cognisant that the capacity of the school community to
accommodate and adjust to policy changes is not unlimited. Nor is the capacity of
government to effectively implement and evaluate such changes.
Accordingly, the Commission has put forward a relatively small number of initiatives that
build on the policy directions set out in Towards Victoria as a Learning Community
(DEECD 2012a). The Commission sees its proposed initiatives as being essential if
autonomy is to deliver material gains in student performance, or to otherwise improve
value for money achieved in the system. They seek to ensure that the autonomy regime:

provides for an appropriate allocation of tasks across the system and, in so doing,
de-clutters the roles of principals and other school leaders

embodies a robust accountability framework for principals and schools in meeting
educational improvement and efficiency objectives

is complemented by high quality leadership skills that can in turn contribute to
improvements in teaching quality

is supported by suitably flexible workforce legislation and regulation that facilitates
tailored deployment of teaching and other resources to meet the particular needs
of individual school communities.
In addition, the Commission has made recommendations on some related matters,
including private sector involvement in the delivery of services in an autonomous
environment and future policy evaluation.
ABOUT THE INQUIRY
3
Box 1.1
Objectives and measuring success
Both the Melbourne Declaration and the National Education Agreement were
founded on the notions of promoting excellence and equality of educational
opportunity. These notions also underpin the proposals in the Review of Funding for
Schooling (Gonski et al. 2011) and the National Education Reform Agreement
(COAG 2013). More specifically, the recently released Compact Consultation Draft
spells out the following principles for Victorian Government School Education:

the capacity for all students to exercise education choices that meet their
learning needs, aspirations and interests, and support for them to realise their full
potential

a commitment to evidence-based performance improvement

the provision of a safe, inclusive and orderly school environment

effective, efficient and fair resource management

a system that is open, responsive and accountable (DEECD 2012b, 1).
To date, the measurement of success in pursuing such objectives has relied heavily
on the use of student performance data from domestic and international student
testing regimes (chapter 2).
However, as elaborated in chapter 3, reliance on such metrics has several
drawbacks. Unsurprisingly, they focus on the student outcomes that are most readily
‘measurable’ — and, in particular, literacy and numeracy. Though literacy and
numeracy are essential foundations for much other learning activity, other benefits
imparted by school education are not accounted for. Similarly, in accounting for
the impact of student disadvantage on performance outcomes, the focus is heavily
on the socio-economic status of students, with much less emphasis on contributors
such as disability. And, to date, there has been an emphasis on the reporting of
absolute student scores, rather than on the extent of student improvement (‘gain
scores’) — though this is beginning to change.
As well, student performance and changes in that performance, will be influenced
by a host of individual school policies, by policies in other areas (such as health and
housing), and by non-policy-related factors. Thus, identifying the contribution of
particular schools-related initiatives may be extremely difficult. The costs of
achieving improvements in student performance are a further important policy
consideration.
The upshot is that student performance indicators at best provide a ‘helicopter’
view of whether the system as a whole is moving in the right direction. Judging the
success of individual policy initiatives requires more targeted evaluation which takes
account of both benefits and costs (chapter 12).
… that are informed by experience elsewhere
The Commission has looked at the characteristics and effectiveness of autonomy
arrangements in other Australian jurisdictions and overseas. This analysis has provided
useful perspectives on how autonomous school systems should be configured if they
are to provide performance benefits.
However, individual school systems — and to some extent the outcomes they deliver —
are the product of history and circumstance. Accordingly, the Commission has sought
to develop and analyse options for giving effect to greater autonomy in the Victorian
government school sector that reflect the particular circumstances of the system, and
which have been informed rather than driven by experience elsewhere.
4
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
… that recognise the risks for educationally disadvantaged students
Consistent with the thrust of the broad schools reform agenda, the Commission has also
paid particular attention to the implications of an autonomous government school
sector for disadvantaged students. Many disadvantaged students (and also gifted
students) could benefit from more targeted school leadership and teaching input
made possible by greater devolution of decision making. Equally, there are risks for
disadvantaged students that need to be explicitly addressed (chapter 11), especially in
an environment in which many parents are able to choose the schools their children
attend. That said, as the report makes clear, while choice and autonomy can magnify
each other’s effects, they are in fact conceptually different policy approaches.
… and that recognise uncertainty in regard to outcomes
If well implemented and appropriately resourced, greater autonomy for government
schools has the potential to make a valuable contribution to realising the Government’s
objective of lifting the performance of the Victorian school system into the top global
tier over the next decade. As indicated above, the proposals in this report are intended
to support the effective operation of the autonomy regime.
But as experience over a number of years exemplifies, finding the levers to drive
significant performance improvement in the school system has not been easy. Hence,
there is necessarily some uncertainty about the precise impacts of the autonomy
reforms and the Commission’s specific proposals to support their operation.
Such uncertainty is not a reason to eschew change and instead stick with
arrangements that: constrain the scope to tailor decision making to the needs of
particular school communities; are subject to a governance and accountability regime
that is deficient in a number of important respects; and which require principals and
other school leaders to spend excessive time on administrative and other tasks that
distract from educational leadership.
Rather, uncertainty implies the need for an implementation approach that allows for
policy learning and iteration. To this end, the Commission has proposed progressive
reform that builds in robust reviews of the regime as a whole and its implementation.
1.3
Stakeholder engagement
The Commission posted the terms of reference, inquiry particulars, and invited
stakeholder participation on its inquiry website (www.vcec.vic.gov.au). Articles were
included in the DEECD schools bulletin, and newsletters of various representative
bodies, and the inquiry was disseminated through social media. In October 2012, the
Commission released an issues paper, distributed it widely to interested stakeholders,
and invited submissions to the inquiry.
On 28 May 2013, the Treasurer granted the Commission a six week extension to the
reporting date for the final report (the due date became 31 July 2013). The Commission
took the unusual step of seeking an extension because:

the start date of the inquiry late in the school year was a major impediment to
arranging necessary meetings with individuals, key groups, and a range of principals

a small number of formal submissions from stakeholders necessitated a more
protracted consultation process on our part

it took more time than planned to obtain key data on educational outcomes.
ABOUT THE INQUIRY
5
During the inquiry, the Commission met with a large number of individuals and
organisations: the education sector (including many school visits); academic
institutions; business; and relevant Victorian, Commonwealth and other jurisdictions’
government departments and agencies. In preparing its draft report the Commission
held two principal workshops, and received 12 individual submissions from interested
parties, including academics, government agencies, private individuals, principal and
parent representative groups.
After the release of the draft report the Commission held an additional two
roundtables, three regional/rural visits, a presentation and discussion at the Bastow
Institute of Educational Leadership. The 22 submissions on the draft report were
published on the Commission’s website. In addition, the Commission had access to the
more than 100 submissions made to DEECD in response to its New Directions for School
Leadership and the Teaching Profession discussion paper.
Before and after the draft report, the Commission embarked on an extensive program of
meetings and workshops, and met with representatives from 70 individual organisations,
of whom 38 were school principals. A further 60 school principals, approximately,
attended workshops or meetings hosted by Victorian school based associations.
Social media complemented other communication channels by allowing the
Commission to: reach a broader audience; engage stakeholders; and conduct more
timely communications. For example, the Commission had over 600 followers on Twitter;
and a post mentioning the Commission’s school inquiry on the Today Show’s Facebook
page elicited over 100 comments and over 200 likes.
The Commission thanks those people and organisations that participated in its
face-to-face consultation processes, participated through social media, and/or made
a submission to the inquiry both before and after the release of the draft report. In
particular, the Commission acknowledges the work of those that organised meetings,
venues, and/ or made time available in their meetings for the Commission to consult
with the education sector. These include the Association of School Councils in Victoria,
Australian Principals Federation, Bastow Institute, Country Education Project, DEECD,
Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals, and the Victorian Principals
Association. The Commission appreciates the quality of the submissions, reflecting the
thought and effort that have been put into their preparation. Detailed information
about the consultation process is available in appendix A.
6
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS