AEU submission: Victorian Parliament Inquiry into the Victorian Auditor-General’s report - Managing School Infrastructure

AEU Victoria's submission to the Victorian Parliament’s Public Accounts and Estimates Committee Inquiry into the Victorian Auditor-General’s report no.253: Managing School Infrastructure (2017), submitted January 2020.

Download the submission here

Introduction

The Australian Education Union Victorian Branch (AEU) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission to the Victorian Parliament’s Public Accounts and Estimates Committee Inquiry into the Victorian Auditor-General’s report no.253: Managing School Infrastructure (2017).

The AEU represents more than 48,000 members working in Victorian public schools, early childhood, TAFE and adult provision. The union is the largest professional and industrial representative organisation for principals and assistant principals in Victoria. At the centre of the democratic structures of the AEU is an open membership dialogue about key issues which school staff confront and are dealing with on a day to day basis. Many of the insights in this submission are drawn directly from the experiences of AEU members, especially principals and assistant principals.

The AEU and its predecessor unions have for many decades advocated on behalf of union members and public school communities about the adequate provision of school infrastructure. The union has a long history of campaigning for increased government investment in school buildings and facilities so that they properly meet the academic and welfare needs of our students and the wider community.

We recognise that school infrastructure provision for new schools and the ongoing maintenance of existing schools is a fundamental aspect of a well resourced and high quality public education system. Indeed, the preparedness for governments to invest satisfactorily is a measure of how much they value public education and the educational opportunities afforded Victoria’s children and young people, the majority of whom attend public schools. The level of investment is equally a proxy for the stead with which public school teachers, education support staff, and principals are held by the government of the day.

Investment in school buildings and facilities is vital to ensure all students can learn in safe, accessible, and up-to-date environments, regardless of their school’s location. The Victorian community agrees, with AEU research showing that 90% of voters, especially parents, consider that it is important or very important for government to build and maintain classrooms and facilities.

Half of those surveyed rated the provision of adequate classrooms, learning facilities, and school grounds for all children in all schools as one of the top five initiatives to make Victoria the ‘education state’.

The Department of Education must have effective systems and processes in place to suitably plan and manage the establishment of new schools and the maintenance of existing school 

infrastructure, albeit the devolved system for managing school assets relies too heavily on work required by school leaders at the local level.

The Victorian government have invested significantly in the capital programs and maintenance over recent years. This has been very welcome and stands in stark contrast to the lack of investment in schools and infrastructure during the Baillieu/Napthine government (2010-14). However, much more investment is required to ensure that all public school students and staff can learn and work in modern, safe, and healthy learning environments which are so fundamental to high quality public education.

The AEU’s submission to the inquiry is based on the union’s view of the current infrastructure issues facing public school communities and our members, as well as the Department of Education’s (DET) progress on enacting the Auditor General’s recommendations.

Devolution and the role of principals and school councils

Devolution and governance

The Auditor General’s report correctly identifies the significant changes made by the Kennett Liberal government to the administration of government schools and their ongoing legacy as central to the current infrastructure maintenance arrangements. These changes divorced substantial elements of the responsibility of maintaining school building and facilities from the Minister of Education and DET meaning much of the planning and management responsibility was left to principals and to some extent school councils.

Reflecting the status of the Victorian Auditor General’s Office, and the limitations placed on the audits it conducts, the key question of whether the devolution of this responsibility was and is appropriate was not addressed. Instead the Auditor General dealt with the issue by reasserting the long held rationale of the current arrangements: “schools are best managed locally so that their unique needs are met".1 Indeed the Auditor General goes on to comment that “weaknesses remain in how DET holds schools accountable for their role in managing school assets. This compromises DET’s ability to plan and manage the assets under its control”.2 The AEU asserts that schools and therefore principals should have less formal responsibility and fewer expectations placed on them around managing school assets not more, with the DET taking greater responsibility. 

The Auditor General commented that the “DET sets out the major managerial functions of a principal in their employment contracts, including to 'develop, implement and manage a plan for the development and general maintenance of school buildings and grounds'. DET has not defined the plan referred to and therefore does not consistently hold principals to account.”3 The AEU considers that had the scope of the audit permitted an analysis of this fundamental governance arrangement then one reasonable conclusion may have been to recommend to significantly recentralise the planning and management of school infrastructure so that principals no longer held the overt responsibility for undertaking many elements of this work.

Principal roles, responsibilities, and workload

It is unreasonable for principals to continue to be expected to plan and manage school infrastructure under the current model. While there has been some focus on increasing principal capability through mandated training in the context of the accountability required of them this has been limited and has the effect of taking the attention of school leaders’ away from their more fundamental responsibilities, not least educational leadership.

Of even greater concern is the impact on principal and assistant principals’ workload. The excessive workload of school leaders is well documented, with a survey conducted by the Australian Council of Educational Research in 2016 finding that on average principals are working 60 hours per week.4 The continued expectation that principals can be largely responsible for developing, implementing, and managing a plan for the development and general maintenance of school buildings and grounds is not reasonable in the context of the enormous roles and responsibilities outlined in their contracts.5

The direct involvement of school leadership and the community through the school council is essential in ensuring that school infrastructure is maintained and developed in ways that meet specific needs of the students and staff at each school. However, this should not translate to principals being contractually required to undertake work which more properly sits within the remit of the department. Nor should it mean that school councils have unrealistic governance obligations to oversee this planning and management.

Principals routinely outline their frustration at being required to undertake detailed and time consuming infrastructure planning and management work at the expense of their core responsibilities to lead and support school based curriculum, pedagogy, student welfare, and staffing.

It is time to fundamentally reform school building and maintenance governance and processes to address the failure of devolution. The Auditor General’s report identifies that a major issue DET faces is the disconnect between what is currently a school based responsibility and the overall responsibility held by the minister. While school councils and principals must have a strong voice in any maintenance planning decisions the actual work needs to be contracted and overseen at a regional or central level. The current arrangements distract principals from their primary job and leaves school’s vulnerable to not having maintenance being undertaken, in a funding environment where Victorian public school students remain the lowest funded in the nation.6

Capital investment

The AEU recognises the significant and unprecedented capital investment in school infrastructure by the Andrews government during its first term in office, and the continued investment through the 2019-20 Victorian budget. Commitments made to the Victorian community ahead of the 2018 state election will see sustained investment over future budget cycles through to 2022.

The announcement in September 2019 of further maintenance funding for all schools was welcomed by AEU members and school communities and will make further inroads into the school maintenance backlog. As the Auditor General concluded “without adequate funding, schools will continue to postpone much-needed repairs, prioritise reactive rather than preventative maintenance, and struggle to maintain assets effectively”.7 The extent to which this funding will establish a new baseline from which ongoing maintenance budgets can be struck so that schools can prioritise preventative maintenance will be closely monitored by the AEU.

The union notes that at the end of the 2019 school year Victorian public schools held more than $1 billion dollars in school bank accounts up from $646 million in 2013.8 The AEU recognises that some of the money held is locally raised through fund raising, voluntary school fees, and other activities with principals reporting that much of this money is used on building and grounds maintenance. We also recognise that some schools have detailed plans about how locally held funds would be spent on a range of local infrastructure and educational programs.9 However, the union remains concerned that a significant amount of money is held in school bank accounts rather than spent to meet the needs of students including preventative maintenance work.

Equally the union agrees with the Auditor General’s analysis from 2015 that the inadequate amount of funding provided to schools for maintenance has meant that schools have needed to supplement this by appropriating funding earmarked for educational programs. While more maintenance funding funding than ever is available to schools reflecting the significant need, it is nevertheless understandable that principals and school councils take an overtly conservative approach to holding funds locally in an environment when the actual cost of maintaining school infrastructure is not being met through annual student resource package allocations and DET maintenance projects.

A way forward

The AEU contends that DET need to reach the right balance between the roles and responsibilities of school leaders and the department in managing school infrastructure. Even with the roll out of the DET online school maintenance plan portal, the department leaves core asset management responsibilities to principals with some of the consequences outlined above. The department’s assumption that the current allocation of roles and responsibilities between principals and DET is effective and only in need of continuous improvement (by principals) must be questioned, starting with appropriate engagement with principal employees and the AEU.

Principals and other school leaders should not bear responsibility for much of the ‘leg work’ associated with managing school infrastructure. This important but busy work distracts them from their core work. The union supports the notion that a school principal has the overall responsibility for overseeing the learning and working environment in a school but that activities which make them responsible for asset management functions such as inspections, maintenance of occupational health and safety and asbestos registries, the procurement of maintenance services, contractor engagement and overt management, are tasks, that in many instances should be undertaken by DET at area, regional and central levels. In this way the AEU supports the recommendation made by Infrastructure Victoria in 2016 to establish a new regional maintenance model for schools.10 We note that the department have a pilot involving 50 schools where all maintenance planning and delivery is managed by a contractor outside the school.

It is not now, nor has it ever been reasonable for principals and other school staff to have the all the skills and experience required, or devote the time needed to attaining those skills, to deal with the huge volume of legislative, regulatory, and policy compliance and administration related to asset management.

Central to the union’s position is that DET should alleviate school staff of those responsibilities, tasks and duties which do not have a clear and direct impact on the teaching, learning and welfare programs within a school. With this approach this in mind, of equal importance is the provision of responsive and high quality asset management services which schools can draw on consistent with the school’s asset management plan or when required to maintain the best possible learning environment for students and workplace for staff. The arrangements of such services should not ignore the importance of engaging local contractors, which is often a benefit of the current model.

Minimising the asset management work required of principals will also ensure that DET and the minister can acquit against their mandated responsibilities, a significant issue raised by the Auditor General. As outlined in the DET 2018-19 Annual Report, schools are not compliant with the Victorian government’s Asset Management Accountability Framework.11 The assumption that this can be rectified by making schools more accountable and compliant is erroneous. Instead the DET should relieve schools of many of their current responsibilities relating to infrastructure management.

Future investment

Planning for enrolment growth

At the heart of the promise of public education is the ability for families to be able to send their children to a public school in their local community. Overtime schools have become one of the few remaining hubs for widespread community interactions. The AEU has long advocated for schools to be placed at the centre of community life. In advancing our vision for public education a decade ago, we asserted that government needs to adopt a plan for school infrastructure provision so that:

“community, sporting, cultural and educational facilities are located at or near the school. A modern public school will have a preschool, primary and secondary school co-located on one site with community sporting ovals, swimming pool, gymnasium, theatre and library. It should also be co-located with other community resources like maternal health, childcare, and community services. It should also have the agencies, pastoral care, welfare support and special settings required by students with learning difficulties or special personal needs.”12

School provision must be about more than just classrooms and shelter sheds, it must be used as an opportunity to build our communities and bring them together. On this basis, we support the government’s decision to co-locate many new preschools with primary schools as part of the roll out of universal 3 year old preschool. There is much more scope for action to build public infrastructure in and around schools as recommended by Infrastructure Victoria.13

The considerable increases to Victoria’s school age population is well documented with 50 new public schools and the expansion and modernisation of hundreds of others either budgeted for or subject to commitments during this term of government. The Andrew’s government is commended for this investment as it will go a long way to ensuring the adequate provision of public schools. Just how adequate remains to be seen. As noted by the Auditor General, Infrastructure Victoria, and the subject of recommendations made by this committee there is insufficient transparency when it comes to the planning data relied upon to make decisions about the provision of new schools. Weagree with this committee’s finding in 2018 that “the current school investment process lacks transparency as the data demonstrating the need for the location of new schools is not publicly available” and recommendation that “the planning data that underpins the demonstrated need for each new school be included and regularly updated on the interactive Victorian School Building Authority website”.14 Victorians should have access to information so they can independently judge whether there is sufficient government investment in school infrastructure provision.

The AEU recognises the ongoing need for portable/relocatable school buildings to supplement established buildings. However, there is an overreliance on temporary classrooms in many schools, not least for students and school staff in schools in Melbourne’s growth corridors. Too many students continue to be educated in portable classrooms due to inadequate planning timelines and capital allocations, and staged building works. Staged building works for new and rebuilt schools often leads to significant disruption to school communities, especially where there is an overreliance on portable classrooms. The funding of projects in stages should be avoided where possible through whole-of-project funding arrangements. The union recommends that the DET facilities schedule should be updated to be less reliant on portable school buildings.

There needs to be a broader review of the facilities schedule to ensure that it meets the need of contemporary curriculum and pedagogy. The AEU is aware that in some new schools with significant enrolments in the early primary years, the facilities schedule does not enable those schools to easily meet the class size requirements mandated by the Victorian Government Schools Agreement 2017. This is because the space allocated to general purpose classrooms assumes the accommodation of approximately 25 students, however, the industrial agreement requires that the average class size in a school for students in Prep to Year 2 is not more than 21.

The AEU recognises the ongoing need for portable/relocatable school buildings to supplement established buildings. However, there is an overreliance on temporary classrooms in many schools, not least for students and school staff in schools in Melbourne’s growth corridors. Too many students continue to be educated in portable classrooms due to inadequate planning timelines and capital allocations, and staged building works. Staged building works for new and rebuilt schools often leads to significant disruption to school communities, especially where there is an overreliance on portable classrooms. The funding of projects in stages should be avoided where possible through whole-of-project funding arrangements. The union recommends that the DET facilities schedule should be updated to be less reliant on portable school buildings.

There needs to be a broader review of the facilities schedule to ensure that it meets the need of contemporary curriculum and pedagogy. The AEU is aware that in some new schools with significant enrolments in the early primary years, the facilities schedule does not enable those schools to easily meet the class size requirements mandated by the Victorian Government Schools Agreement 2017. This is because the space allocated to general purpose classrooms assumes the accommodation of approximately 25 students, however, the industrial agreement requires that the average class size in a school for students in Prep to Year 2 is not more than 21.

Any revised facilities schedule must explicitly include provision for sustainably designed buildings. Features to enhance school building’s environmental sustainability are all too often are seen as ‘added extras’ and when budgets are tight, they become expendable. In terms of long term planning for infrastructure there are compelling economic and educational reasons to ensure our school infrastructure is built to cope with the ongoing impacts of climate change.

We also know that funding for buildings and facilities at non-mainstream locations such as special schools, teaching units, community schools and language centres are too easily overlooked when decisions are made about where to allocate funding. This needs to change so that students who need flexible learning options in settings which are alternative to the mainstream can benefit from suitably designed, safe and modern environments.

Maintaining existing infrastructure

This committee found in 2018 that:

“government schools in Victoria have been funded at a rate below industry standards for maintenance. Annual investment of two to four per cent of asset replacement value is regarded as typical. School maintenance funding is approximately 0.7 per cent of asset replacement value (ARV) in 2017-18 and 2018-19.”15

The Auditor General reported that since 2012 the department have regularly recommended that maintenance investment should be to 2-2.5 per cent of the AVR to account for the state of school buildings.16 In response, governments have sought to increase maintenance funding albeit to levels which are approximately 25 per cent of the maximum typical AVR. Without increased effort to allocate additional funds to school maintenance public school infrastructure will never get to the point where preventative maintenance rather than reactive is the standard form of maintenance.

The ongoing funding of school maintenance through the student resource package (SRP) on an average rather actual basis must be rectified. As the Auditor General noted, the greatest amount of maintenance funding is allocated through the SRP based on a predetermined formula rather than the actual cost of maintenance at a given school.17 There is little wonder why school communities must fundraise to repair and update building and facilities. The averages verses actuals funding arrangements makes it extremely difficult for principals to manage maintenance projects and it is not reasonable for them to be held accountable within the current governance structure. In addition, this exacerbates existing equity issues, where schools in low socio-economic communities unable to fundraise to the same extent as those in more advantaged communities.

As noted above regarding the provision decisions for new schools, there is equally a continued lack of transparency when it comes to the allocation of capital funding to rebuild or modernise existing schools. While the rolling facilities evaluation provides a clear understanding on the state of school buildings and rates them accordingly, there is no way in which the Victorian community can see how the needs as identified though the evaluation are then prioritised for funding through the Victorian budget.

Endnotes:

https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20170511-School-Infrastructure.pdf, p.5 

2 Ibid, p.9

3 Ibid, p.58

https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=tll_misc, p.51

https://education.vic.gov.au/hrweb/Documents/Schedule-B-Principal-sample.pdf

https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2019/child-care-education-and- training/school-education/rogs-2019-partb-chapter4.pdf, table 4A. 14

https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20170511-School-Infrastructure.pdf, p.51

https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/victorian-state-schools-bank-account-balances-dec-2011-2012-and-2013

https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20150211-School-costs.pdf, p.15

10 https://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IV_30_Year_Strategy_WEB_V2.pdf; p.118

11 https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/2018-19-annual-report.pdf, p.119

12 Education for Everyone’s Needs, Australian Education Union, 2010

13 https://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2019/03/IV_30_Year_Strategy_WEB_V2.pdf, p.118

14 https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/paec/2018-19_Budget_Estimates/PAEC_58- 15_Report_on_the_2018-19_Budget_Estimates.pdf, p.95; https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20170511-School-Infrastructure.pdf, p.23; https://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IV_30_Year_Strategy_WEB_V2.pdf, p.118

15 https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/paec/2018-19_Budget_Estimates/PAEC_58- 15_Report_on_the_2018-19_Budget_Estimates.pdf, p.97

16 https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20170511-School-Infrastructure.pdf, p.50 

17 ibid, p.46