The Bureaucratisation of Public Education in Australia

The following is a summary of a research paper on the bureaucratisation of public education in Australia. It can be downloaded below. As far as we are aware, this study is the first to use data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to analyse the impact of school accountability measures on the staffing structure of the public education system.

The paper was updated on 19 August to include an estimate of the small increase in funding for public schools that was accounted for by the increase in non-teaching staff.

Australia has long been infected by what world renowned Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg, currently professor of education at the Gonski Institute of Education in Sydney, coined as GERM (Global Education Reform Movement). It is characterised by corporate management policies, test-based accountability of schools and fostering competition between schools to drive improvement in education outcomes. One manifestation of GERM is a bloated bureaucracy to police compliance with regulations, collect and record information and monitor performance.

Public school systems in Australia have seen an enormous increase in bureaucracy since the turn of the century. So-called school reforms beginning in the 1990s promised less bureaucratic control but instead have intensified bureaucracy at all levels of public education systems. Both Coalition and Labor governments have adopted GERM and expanded bureaucracy in public education.

Bureaucratisation has increased throughout the system – at central and regional offices, schools and for teachers. From 2002 to 2019, the increase in administrative staff at the system and school levels was far greater than the increase in teachers and students.

Administrative and clerical staff increased by 90.2% in primary schools and 82.6% in secondary schools [see Chart 1]. The increase in primary schools was 3½ times the increase in teachers (25.3%) and the increase in secondary schools nearly seven times the increase in teachers (12.4%).

The increases in administrative staff also far exceeded the increase in enrolments – six times the increase in students in primary (14.5%) and secondary schools (13.6%). Administrative staff now comprise 27% of school staff in primary schools compared to 20% in 2002. Administrative staff in secondary schools increased from 17% to 25% of all staff.

The increase in central and regional office staff of 56% was three times that for all teachers (19%) and four times that of students (14%). Detailed figures for non-school staff are available only from 2015. The number of executive (management) staff increased by 70% to 2019. This was over ten times the increase in students and teachers over the period which increased by only 6.4% and 6.5% respectively. Total non-school staff increased by 23.5%, nearly four times that of students and teachers.

As a result, there was a large reduction in the ratio of students to non-teaching staff in schools in contrast to little change in the student-teacher ratios. The student/non-teaching staff ratio in primary schools fell from 51.9 in 2002 to 33.2 in 2019 – a 36% reduction – while the student/teacher ratio was reduced from 16.7 to 15.3 – a reduction of only 8% [Chart 2]. The student/administrative staff ratio in primary schools fell from 63.7 to 38.4 – a reduction of nearly 40%.

The student/non-teaching staff ratio in secondary schools fell from 45 to 30.5 – a reduction of 32% – while the student/teacher ratio increased from 12.5 to 12.7, an increase of 1.6%. The student/administrative staff ratio fell from 58.2 to 36.2 – a reduction of 37.8%. There was also a large reduction in the student/non-school staff ratio from 282.1 in 2002 to 206.5 in 2019 – a reduction of 26.8%.

Increased government accountability requirements and regulations have driven the huge increase in administrative staff in central and regional offices and in schools as well as placing increased administrative workloads on principals and teachers. The promise of more school autonomy and less bureaucratic control has turned into a monster of more bureaucracy at both the central and school levels.

Public schools are subject to widespread accountability measures covering financial management, student well-being, behaviour management and safety, teacher appraisal, compliance training, school review processes, curriculum standards, student progress based on standardised test results, workplace health and safety, and auditing. This requires increased monitoring and administration by managers and staff in central and regional offices.

State education departments are focused primarily on administrative and compliance roles rather than curriculum, teaching and learning support. Very few branches of state departments of education are directly involved in supporting teaching and learning. The vast majority are devoted to administration of finance, policing compliance to regulations, performance monitoring, human resource management and other corporate functions.

Of course, public schools must be accountable, but the huge growth of bureaucracy has been at the expense of more direct support for teaching and learning in schools.  As one principal told Save Our Schools, central office is “micro-managing schools” and that “more and more accountability and evaluation become counter-productive” for teaching and learning.

Despite the increase in administrative staff in schools, the administrative load for principals and teachers has increased. Data from the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 show that principals and teachers are working longer hours on administration. Australian teachers spend the 3rd highest number of hours on management and administration in the OECD.

The bureaucratisation of public education has clearly failed. The large achievement gaps between disadvantaged and advantaged students have increased or remain virtually unchanged. For example, the results from the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) show that 15-year-old students from low socio-economic status (SES) families in Australia have remained about three years of learning behind their high SES peers since 2000. Similarly, the gaps between low and high SES Year 9 students in NAPLAN results remain at three to four years of learning since 2008 when NAPLAN was introduced.

The accountability regime imposed on schools has led to a significant misallocation of resources. The increased bureaucracy has soaked half the small increase in funding for public schools since 2002 and diverted much needed funding from directly supporting teaching and learning.

Government funding of public schools, adjusted for inflation, increased by $1,384 per student between 2001-02 and 2017-18. Expenditure on non-teaching staff accounted for 50% of this increase. The percentage increase in expenditure on administrative and clerical staff and other non-teaching staff in schools was over four times that on teachers – 47% compared to 11%.

Expenditure on bureaucracy was seen as just as important as increasing expenditure on supporting student learning. To this extent, expenditure on bureaucracy prevailed over increased expenditure on teaching and learning.

Increasing bureaucratisation is not the way to improve school performance and student outcomes. Public schools continue to face large shortages in teachers in key subject areas with the result that many are teaching out-of-field. Australian governments must eradicate GERM and focus on providing the necessary high quality human and material resources for public schools to reduce the large achievement gaps.

4 Replies to “The Bureaucratisation of Public Education in Australia”

  1. Incisive analysis Trevor, in line with what teachers have been telling us in studies of their work. Policies intending to “cut red tape” appear to have achieved the opposite. Devolution of authority to schools, has been accompanied by more instrumental central policy and staff in central and regional office. As teachers face more and more accountability the system floats on in a bloated mess, with no transparent and comprehensive analysis, poor accountability and no taste for the bold reform that is needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.