SOCIAL Inclusion Commissioner for Tasmania Professor David Adams shares his thoughts on the School Viability Reference Group.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The announcement of the School Viability Reference Group by Education Minister Nick McKim has already sensibly led to questions about what criteria are used to assess school viability.
Since there is a long international history in this field it is worth sketching the types of criteria used and summarise the debates raised.
The criteria are usually in four categories: educational, economic, family and community, and regional.
In Tasmania the perception from many school communities to date is that criteria and weightings have privileged economic then educational issues at the expense of family, community and regional needs, and that the evidence behind the educational and economic arguments don't stack up.
The main educational arguments for school closures is that small class sizes and limited choice are often correlated with lower educational achievement and that students miss out on the range of educational and peer experiences provided in larger settings.
Needless to say these sorts of arguments are all contested.
The educational arguments for small schools are both micro arguments, about the benefits of quality locality-based learning, and macro arguments, about the importance of public education to a healthy society.
The economic arguments are that small schools are often cost inefficient, especially where there is low occupancy and high maintenance/replacement costs.
When combined with higher costs for low teacher- pupil ratios, the technical jargon is under-utilisation of economies of scale.
On the other side of the argument there are many strategies to increase economic viability such as schools as multiple-use facilities, partnerships with businesses and local ownership models.
The family and community argument is that school closures will have adverse impacts on the family and community well- being and a domino effect on the viability of local communities.
Schools are more than sites for education they are crucial to the social fabric.
,Merging some school communities makes about as much sense as merging Collingwood and Carlton to form one super team.
The contrary view is that school mergers can increase the diversity and social experiences of otherwise isolated small towns.
Finally, the regional argument is that schools are important links in local economies and that the loss of a school can lead to a domino effect on the economic viability of towns.
The critical public policy issue here is how much do we value our regional towns and communities and who should pay for investments/ maintenance of infrastructure such as schools as part of a bigger plan for regional sustainability?
Minister McKim has stated that effective and efficient delivery of public education must be a primary driver.
Most school communities would argue that, even if there is agreement on relevant criteria, the question of weightings within and between criteria should not be a one-size-fits- all but take account of the particular circumstances of each school community.
Just as importantly school communities and other stakeholders will want to be part of the process rather than on the sidelines or consulted in some flying visit.
Internationally most of the enduring solutions to school viability have come from local communities not governments.