• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Strengthening DET regional relationships and support: report of consultation findings

prepared for Regional Services Group Department of Education and Training Table of contents Executive summary

Background

The Victorian Government is committed to making Victoria the Education State. Providing better support and services to schools through the regions is a core aspect of this reform. Issues have been raised by stakeholders, in particular government schools, concerned about the current regional services model. For many it simply does not work.

In response to these issues, the Department of Education and Training (DET or the department) engaged SenateSHJ to conduct a state-wide consultation on the future of regional services in Victoria. While the main focus of the consultation was schools, it also provided an opportunity to touch on what role regional services can play for early childhood education and care and vocational education and training (VET) providers.

The consultation gathered views on the role of regional services, what services are needed, and how, and where services should be delivered. It involved approximately 1,500 representatives of the entire education system through numerous consultation methods, including workshops, focus groups, interviews, written submissions and an online forum. It was based on a consultation paper, and questions in this paper, drafted by DET.

This report outlines the findings of the consultation process.

Findings

The findings outlined in this report consider the key aspects revealed by the consultation process. These are focused on: The strengths and issues of the current model The support, expertise and services that stakeholders identified are required How and where these should be provided.

1. Resourcefulness and the breadth of focus are seen as positives of the current arrangements. People on the ground are finding ways to be resourceful and are “making do” with what they have, and the services and support available. This is a shared view across the system. In addition, there is a widespread view that the breadth of focus encompassing metropolitan and rural areas has led to a shared appreciation of issues. It was agreed that technology could play a broader role in helping to understand these issues, and in forming better relationships across the regions.

2. A range of factors have contributed to frustration across the sector The lack of a unified and stable direction has frustrated schools, early childhood services and VET providers, leading to confusion and a disrupted focus. The constant changes have resulted in fatigue and cynicism, and have put pressure on all stakeholders, in particular staff and principals. Principals feel unsupported and bogged down in operational activities. Meanwhile, there is a perceived lack of consistency and support around transition points across the 0-18 spectrum. The significant reduction in staff and the size of the regions has contributed to staff in the regions, at all levels, feeling unable to be proactive and to adequately focus on school improvement, partnership building and new initiatives.

3. A clear strategic direction is needed to focus and inspire the education sector There is a consensus that a shared strategic direction is missing, but that the Education State strategy may provide the vision. Principals and the early childhood sector emphasised the need for greater advocacy for government schools and services within the broader system. In addition, the strategic direction should provide for more consistent communication from DET for schools and others, and clarify accountabilities across the department.

4. Enhanced roles would be valued, providing they are resourced effectively The enhanced roles for the centre and regions listed in the paper were viewed favourably by staff, principals and schools, the early childhood and VET sectors. There is a mixture of views about where the services should be provided (centrally, regionally or locally), and a need for more clarity about exactly what the roles mean. There are also concerns about the trade-offs required. There was strong agreement that professional and wellbeing support for school principals is required. Enhanced roles should also facilitate better partnerships and support data management.

5. Senior Advisers are unable to provide the support that schools want and need, and that they want to give More Senior Advisers are needed, with a focus on fewer schools and school improvement. There are mixed views on separating the performance management and support functions of Senior Advisers, and on balance principals want more support. It is clear, however, that Senior Advisers need more support and professional development, and that a new role of Assistant Senior Adviser could be introduced. Relationships are critical for the Senior Adviser role to be successful, and Senior Advisers and principals need more face-to-face time.

6. Student wellbeing and engagement is a major priority, and the provision of SSSOs is a key area of concern for schools and staff Student wellbeing and engagement is a major priority with a need for expert advice and support to deal with complex cases. There is a widespread view that this should be provided through the regions, based on local need. There is a need to increase the number of SSSOs to meet increased demand and/or redefine the role. There is a strong desire for a sustainable staffing and management model, but SSSOs and principals disagree on whether co-location of SSSOs in schools or regions is more appropriate.

7. Additional support and specific expertise is needed to reduce the operational pressure on principals, and to support curriculum development and school improvement Opportunities exist to provide collective services to take operational pressure off principals, for example, around Occupational Health and Safety (OHS), facilities management, Human Resources (HR) and compliance. While it was unclear where this support would sit and exactly how this support would be provided and to what level, there is strong agreement on the need for such resources. There is agreement that the school improvement agenda has been lost, and needs to become a focus again. In particular there is a high demand for curriculum, assessment and pedagogy support which is adaptable to local needs and available on an as-needed basis.

8. Stakeholders are looking for a range of networks with broader representation Multiple networks are welcome, as long as each has a clear purpose and role, and there should be a balance or choice of geographic or ‘like’ networks. Networks could also involve early childhood, VET, Catholic and independent schools. To make them effective, networks could benefit from administrative support.

9. The right model will balance consistency with local knowledge and support Regardless of the model chosen, it should be appropriately resourced and funded, and should not introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy. How it is implemented, and a long-term commitment to it, is critical. There was no clear favourite model. The consultation revealed: Model A (retaining four regions but providing additional support) brings consistency and limited change, as well as welcome additional resources, but does not solve the problem of regions which are too large Model B (expanding the number of regions) brings increased local knowledge and support but could mean major change, and a waste of money Model C (retaining four administrative regions but shifting the department’s primary system interface to seventeen smaller local areas) brings place- based solutions but there is uncertainty about how the local areas would work or whether the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 17 areas are appropriate.

There is generally more interest in Model A or C, and tentative support for the 17 areas structure.

The following pages outline these findings in further detail.

Additional themes Summary reports have been prepared as an appendix to this report, providing further detail on key themes identified in relation to the early childhood and VET sectors.

Early childhood themes Need an increased focus on transitions and the 0-18 approach. Partnerships are considered important, and there is an opportunity for the regions to facilitate better relationships across the education sector, particularly between early childhood and schools. Relationships and partnerships with other organisations such as local councils are also crucial. There is a need for greater recognition of the importance of early intervention, particularly for vulnerable families. Increased resources and support are needed for engaging with these families. Greater clarity of roles is needed between the central and regional offices. The sector feels like it is an after-thought in this consultation and more generally.

VET themes Partnerships between the VET sector and the wider education sector are seen as important and should be strengthened. There is a lack of resources for the VET sector, affecting provision. VET is a secondary focus in this consultation, with the majority of focus placed on schools. There is a lack of specialist knowledge regarding VET within the regions, and schools need more support around VET provision. Methodology

Overview of the consultation process

In planning to conduct this consultation, SenateSHJ worked closely with the department to establish who to consult, and by what method. A consultation narrative was developed to help to clearly communicate the consultation, its scope and purpose to stakeholders.

It was important that principals and DET staff from each region were appropriately represented in the consultation and that, although the primary focus of the consultation was on schools, early childhood and VET stakeholders were also represented in the process. Relevant peak bodies, local government and cross- government stakeholders were also included. A broad mix of school types were consulted through Principal Reference Groups and Principal Networks, including rural and regional, primary and secondary, and small schools.

The consultation process was officially launched on 21 April 2015 with a message from the department Secretary to stakeholders across the education sector, advising them of the consultation and its purpose, sharing the Strengthening DET regional relationship and support consultation paper, and promoting the online forum as a means to participate in the consultation.

Consultation sessions began on 28 April 2015, and were held in numerous locations across Victoria. The format differed depending on the number of attendees and the length of time allocated, and included: focus groups workshops interviews a large-scale stakeholder forum.

It was important that those not invited to attend a face-to-face session had the opportunity to contribute to the consultation, and that those who did attend had the opportunity to contribute further following their session. With this in mind, additional channels were established to enable greater participation. These were: a public online forum written submissions a dedicated email address for questions and other feedback. Participants in the consultation included: principals in each region, through Principal Networks and Principal Reference Groups other school stakeholders such as the Catholic Education Office Melbourne (CEOM) and Independent Schools Victoria (ISV) early childhood services and providers in each region vocational education and training services, including Learn Locals, Local Learning and Employment Networks (LLENs), TAFE CEOs and the Adult, Community and Further Education (ACFE) Board and Regional Councils relevant education, health and community peak bodies, including: Association For Children with a Disability (ACD) Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) Country Education Project Early Childhood Development Advisory Group (ECDAG), made up of numerous peak bodies Parents Victoria Principals' Association of Specialist Schools, Victoria Inc. (PASS) School Governance Australia (SGA) School Stakeholder Reference Group (SSRG) made up of numerous peak bodies Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc. (VAEAI) Victorian Association of Secondary School Principals (VASSP) Victorian Council of School Organisations (VICCSO) Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) Victorian Deaf Education Institute Victorian Principals Association (VPA) Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) Victorian Student Representative Council (VicSRC) local councils and the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) DET staff in the regions including Regional Directors, Deputy Regional Directors and Senior Advisers DET staff in the central office unions, including the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), Australian Education Union (AEU) and the Australian Principals Federation (APF) other government stakeholders including DHHS, the Department of Justice and Regulation (DOJR), and the Department of Economic Development, Jobs Transport and Resources (DEDJTR).

As the online forum was open to the public, additional participants outside of the above groupings may have been involved in the consultation. The consultation closed on 29 May 2015, however some final interviews unable to be scheduled earlier were conducted in the week following, and a small number of late submissions were accepted.

There was a very high level of engagement, with approximately 1,500 stakeholders engaged directly in the consultation through one of 71 sessions, and many stakeholders choosing to be involved in multiple sessions. It is estimated that approximately one quarter of all Victorian principals participated in the consultation in some form.

While a number of consultations were held involving the early childhood and VET sectors, these formed a smaller percentage of the consultation and therefore may not represent the whole of both sectors. These should be explored further in other engagements or consultations.

Focus groups and workshops In total, 48 workshops and focus groups (one of which is a meeting item) were facilitated as part of this consultation. Smaller sessions were defined as focus groups (usually 30 or less participants), and larger sessions as workshops.

The purpose of these sessions was to engage participants in the consultation paper and elicit responses to the 17 questions outlined in it. Later sessions tested emerging themes and allowed participants to deep-dive into particular areas. The questions asked at each session were tailored depending on the stakeholder group being consulted.

Sessions ran from one to two hours, depending on the time each group had available. Most sessions began with a short presentation by the facilitator summarising the consultation process, the consultation paper and, later in the consultation, sharing themes. This was followed by small group discussions on specific questions, finishing with small groups sharing back the key themes from their discussions.

Three of these sessions were run by DET, one session was self-led as a meeting item by the organisation involved, and the remainder were facilitated by SenateSHJ.

Interviews Twenty-two interviews were conducted as part of the consultation. The interviews were either single (one interviewer and one interviewee) or multiple (one interviewer and multiple interviewees). The interviews were mostly conducted in person, with some via phone or video conference as necessary. Each interview was structured around pre-prepared questions based on the consultation paper, but was flexible to allow the interviewee to direct the conversation to those areas most relevant for them. The discussion guide was tailored prior to each interview to ensure the questions asked were relevant and would elicit the information needed for the purposes of the consultation. As the consultation progressed, emerging themes were shared and tested during interviews.

Stakeholder forum The large stakeholder forum was held in the later stages of the consultation, with participants from across the education sector. Interested participants could express their interest in attending through the online forum or via email. The opportunity to attend was advertised at each focus group or workshop prior to the session.

The session ran for 5.5 hours and was attended by approximately 75 participants from various parts of the sector.

The purpose of the session was to deep-dive into particular aspects of the consultation paper, such as the expertise that should be provided through the regions and how this should look in practice. Participants were allocated to tables, ensuring a broad cross-section of stakeholders took part in each discussion.

The session began with a short presentation by the facilitator, sharing themes to date, and consisted of table activities, paired activities, and a number of activities that allowed participants to get up from their tables, form new groups if desired, and move around, keeping energy levels up.

Online forum A public online forum was created to provide an opportunity for those not involved in any of the consultation sessions to contribute to the consultation. It also allowed those already involved an opportunity to contribute further, and enabled participants to engage in ongoing discussions with each other.

The public forum attracted 43 members, not including members of the project team. As the forum was open to the public, an unknown additional number may have followed the online discussions without joining as a member. The majority of members were DET staff (both central and regional), followed by those in the schools sector.

Thought-starters and questions were posted regularly to the forum to stimulate discussions and activity. It was also used to post updates on the consultation, share the consultation paper and other resources, and invite expressions of interest to attend the stakeholder forum.

Written submissions The department established a consultation email address for written submissions. A template for submissions was provided on the online forum and the project website.

Approximately 140 separate written submissions were received from stakeholders across the education sector.

Website A page on the department’s website provided further details of the consultation, including links to the consultation paper, a template for completing submissions, the online forum, and the email address for sending submissions.

Note on terminology Please note that throughout the following consultation findings, references to ‘staff’ refer to DET regional staff, unless stated otherwise. Consultation findings

1. Resourcefulness and breadth of focus are seen as positives of the current arrangements

The consultation paper asked participants to consider the strengths of the current regional support arrangements. Any future changes to the arrangements should take into account what is working well, so that change is not made for the sake of change, and strengths are leveraged.

The key themes addressed in this section are: People on the ground are finding ways to be resourceful and are “making do” with what they have. The breadth of focus encompassing metropolitan and rural areas has led to a shared appreciation of issues.

1.1.People on the ground are finding ways to be resourceful and are “making do” with what they have

DET central and regional staff, school principals and peak bodies, and members of the early childhood and VET sectors acknowledge there is a sense of goodwill among people on the ground, and credit this as one of the strengths of the current system. While the number of staff in the regions has decreased significantly in recent years, there is consensus that there are many passionate people across the sector who are making do with what resources they have, and working towards a common purpose. Principals stated that “there are good people working very hard” and “personnel are trying to meet the needs and do the best with the resources they have”.

It was made clear by both regional staff and principals, however, that this goodwill will not last forever, and therefore change in the form of more resources (both physical and financial) will be of critical importance.

“The only strength of the current model is the hard working, committed workforce that work in isolation.” (SWVR Principal Network)

“We are working well together to achieve the same goal. We can draw on our peers for better support, feedback and sharing.” (NEVR staff) In discussing strengths, it must be noted that some principals felt there were in fact no strengths to the current arrangements, and instead focused on the issues, saying that “there are no strengths, not enough support, and not enough people to assist”. It was also noted by a DET staff member that the strengths exist in spite of the current regional service arrangements, rather than because of them.

“[What’s working well] hasn’t worked well because of design, but because of people’s goodwill on the ground. From a point of design it’s been… completely irrelevant to the needs of schools.” (Senior Adviser)

1.2.The breadth of focus encompassing metropolitan and rural areas has led to a shared appreciation of issues

The current four-region structure, encompassing metropolitan, regional and rural areas, was considered to be beneficial to the system by staff in particular. The structure allows for a broader sharing of ideas and learnings across metropolitan and rural schools and services, the sharing of skills and resources, and a greater understanding of geographic-specific issues. Some principals felt it had helped metropolitan school principals to better empathise with the challenges of regional schools and networks. Early childhood providers noted the increased expertise and shared practices that have come from having larger regions.

“It allows a lens across metro and rural issues.” (Deputy Regional Director)

“The sharing of ideas across metro and rural areas is a strength.” (Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council)

“A strength is being able to share across rural / metro boundaries and develop state-wide policies.” (NEVR staff)

However, other principals and DET staff who work closely with rural schools felt that the difficulties rural principals in particular face were still not widely understood, despite the larger regions. They identified that local needs and context were not considered for these principals. Principals stressed that because of the diversity of schools, one size does not fit all, and that the local context, particularly for small schools, is not understood by DET.

“There still exists a divide between rural and metro.” (Visiting teacher) Technology Technology was identified as a potential enabler for forming better relationships and connections across the regions, and reducing the metro / rural divide, according to staff, principals and early childhood providers.

In some cases, it has been used successfully for this purpose – a small number of DET regional staff credited the availability and use of Polycom as an enabler to forming or maintaining relationships.

“There are considerable efficiency savings to be made – technology can make a difference.” (NWVR Principal Network)

“[With] all of those have video conferencing facilities…there are some opportunities.” (Senior Adviser)

Some Student Support Services Officers (SSSOs) also acknowledged the benefits of technology.

“On a positive, we are not having to travel to Bendigo as often as previously and technology is playing a bigger part in our work to save travel (when it works – it has dropped out twice already in this workshop).” (SSSO)

While staff, principals and early childhood providers discussed the high potential for technology to reduce travel time, it was also discussed that is it not currently being used as well as it could be. Better funding for, training in, and access to technology that is fit for purpose is needed.

“There needs to be an enhancement in the use of technology to help deliver services.” (NWVR leader)

“Network office and availability through virtual / video link connection is improving but needs to be enhanced.” (SEVR school stakeholder)

2. A range of factors have contributed to frustration across the sector

The consultation paper listed a range of issues or concerns identified by principals, the early childhood sector, VET providers and staff about the current arrangements. Participants were asked to consider the issues outlined in the paper, and discuss any additional issues not already represented. The key themes addressed in this section are: A unified and stable strategic direction is lacking. Constant change has led to fatigue and cynicism. Principals feel unsupported and bogged down in operational activities. At all levels, staff in the regions are largely unable to work proactively. There is a lack of consistency and support around transitions.

2.1.A unified and stable strategic direction is lacking

DET staff, principals, early childhood services and the VET sector identified that a vision for the future of education in Victoria does not exist, and that one is required to bring stakeholders together to work towards a shared purpose (see also 3.1). Similarly, a stable strategic direction for regions is required.

“A unified system is important.” (NEVR staff)

“[There is] no unified purpose across the region / department…a unified system makes sense.” (SWVR Principal Network)

Schools The majority of principals expressed concerns about the numerous restructures, and are seeking a clear, long-term plan for education. Each structural change, and even the implementation of new policy, disrupts focus, particularly if a policy is found to be inappropriate for local needs, or poorly implemented.

“The infrastructure of the education department should not change with every political change of government.” (NEVR Principal Network)

“Please decide on a performance model and stick to it.” (SWVR Principal Reference Group)

Early childhood Early childhood participants discussed the need for a clear strategic direction for early childhood, with ECDAG noting that a structure should always be determined by a clear strategy, not the other way around.

“There is a need for a stronger policy articulation of early childhood strategic direction.” (NWVR early childhood) VET and other pathways TAFE representatives expressed confusion around the department’s strategic direction, and the logic behind it. They spoke of a lack of clarity making it hard for TAFE and other VET providers to navigate the system.

“What is the problem trying to be resolved? It needs to be front and centre. There is a lack of critical policy.” (TAFE CEOs)

“[We] need bold leadership from government around the process from 0- 18 years.” (TAFE CEOs)

There was consensus across the sector that an overarching goal for education is needed before agreeing on and implementing any restructures.

2.2.Constant change has led to fatigue and cynicism

There have been numerous changes to the structure of regional services over the years, including the significant restructure four years ago, which has led to change fatigue and strain across the sector, particularly for principals and regional staff.

DET regional staff in particular raised this issue and the need for sensitivity and careful planning in any future changes to ensure both principals and staff feel respected and considered, noting that the many restructures and changes have created angst in schools and networks.

“We are sick of restructures. [People are] cynical, unsure and insecure.” (SEVR staff)

“We need to acknowledge change fatigue. There are things that need to change, but there was a significant restructure of the department and if we change too much again we’re in danger of people disengaging.” (Senior Adviser)

2.3.Principals feel unsupported and bogged down in operational activities

Principals and their representatives, such as the VPA, feel that the high level of operational demands and compliance for principals is affecting their ability to focus on what they identify as their core purpose: improving student outcomes and enhancing the health and wellbeing of learners.

In particular, OHS, facilities management, compliance and HR cases were believed to be taking up too much of principals’ time, which should be spent instead focusing on student needs. The overwhelming operational demands are contributing to the sense of abandonment felt by principals.

Analysis of the consultation data shows this is a greater issue for primary schools, rural and smaller schools. Rural principals and/or principals of very small schools are struggling to meet operational demands, and their challenges were highlighted throughout the consultation largely by DET regional staff and principals in these areas. Some feel the current model is city-centric and is contributing to a decline in standards and opportunities in rural areas.

“Small rural schools have been completely forgotten. It is impossible to get curriculum help, guest speakers, help in school with children with disability, admin help etc. I just never know where I can get help and feel really alone. When I do ask for help the answer is always that we don’t do that or there isn’t anyone to provide services in schools.” (AEU submission quoting a rural primary school presentative)

Principals and other school stakeholders identified a key conflict in that the aim of the sector is to have students with high levels of achievement, but principals’ focus is being redirected with an increase in operational requirements. If Victoria is to be become a global leader in education, consultation participants agreed that those in charge (i.e. principals) must be able to devote more of their time to that goal rather than, for example, OHS requirements and compliance. Alternative methods for delivering operational services are discussed in more detail in 7.1.

“There is massive compliance for principals. We should employ people to do that stuff if we are serious about the system being in the top couple in the world.” (APF)

“Principal capacity to drive change inside classrooms is being compromised due to competing demands and extra workload that detracts from time as an education leader.” (SWVR Principal Reference Group)

“Principals could work 24/7 and still not cover all ‘requirements’… OHS needs to be dealt with in a different and more effective way.” (NEVR Principal Network)

Contributing to their sense of abandonment, principals feel there is limited advocacy on their behalf through the regions, particularly around complaints. It is felt by principals and other school stakeholders that parent complaints are sometimes vexatious and should be pushed back on. Instead, principals found regional staff failed to support them. This lack of support has, in some cases, led to serious health and wellbeing issues for principals. The APF raised this as a key issue.

“When something does go wrong, the principal is always wrong [in the eyes of the department]. There is no one in the system supporting them and the only person who is right is the parent, no matter what. There is no one to stand up [for the principal]. There is no push back. They would take the principal out of the school rather than telling the parent no…If you’re strong it might bounce off but eventually it’ll run through you. It can happen to the best of principals.” (APF)

There is an opportunity for a role at a regional level to filter complaints in the first instance, and work with and better support principals through the process of resolving complaints, in order to take some pressure off principals.

2.4.At all levels, staff in the regions are largely unable to work proactively

Following the significant reduction in staff in the regions, DET regional staff reported finding themselves responding to issues and meeting administrative demands, rather than taking proactive action in their roles. This could include thinking strategically about school improvement, partnership building and designing and implementing new initiatives across the sector.

The majority of schools felt the only contact they have with regional staff is when there is a problem, and have identified the lack of proactive support as a key issue. This has been echoed by Senior Advisers, who readily admit the lack of physical resources in regional offices has led to unmanageable workloads. There is often simply no capacity to provide support once the requirements of performance management have been met (see 5.1 and 5.2).

“More people [are needed in the regions] with the right expertise, and to be contactable and visible.” (SWVR Principal Network)

“Building relationships with principals and supporting them in their own performance and development, and with principals in developing strategic vision and school improvement work. That is good work. But the amount of time [we have to do it] is not enough.” (Senior Adviser)

Analysis of the consultation data shows that the high level of reactivity is a function of both workload and, for some regional staff, increased time on the road due to the large spread of the regions. Regional staff reported that the size of the current four regions has led to significant amounts of travel time, making it increasingly difficult to have face-to-face contact with schools and services. The APF described the amount of time spent travelling as “ripping money out of the system we could better deploy”.

Operating reactively has manifested in a lack of positive interactions between the regions and schools, a lack of face-to-face time, and the inability to be strategic and conduct adequate planning. The early childhood sector, too, want more proactive initiatives and programs around early years. Similarly, VET participants called for stronger support for providers, greater monitoring, and the brokering of relationships between Learn Locals and schools.

The ANMF suggested shifting management of the Maternal Child Health Line from the regions to central DET. This would not change the experience for the end- user, but may take some strain off the regions.

2.5.There is a lack of consistency and support around transitions

Throughout the consultation process, there was consistent feedback on the importance of transition points from both inside the education sector (regional staff, early childhood and VET) and outside (other government departments, councils and other organisations such as think-tanks). The key transition points identified across the 0-18 spectrum by these stakeholder groups are early childhood to primary school, primary school to secondary school, and secondary school to other training.

Analysis of the consultation forums, interviews and submissions show a consensus around the need for the department to facilitate greater linkages and communication between institutions at these points. The consultation also reveals a requirement for formal transition processes across all stages of education.

The consultation reveals a clear opportunity for the department to improve and streamline education transition points to enhance the 0-18 focus.

“The new regional services should facilitate the development of a unified system linking public schools to early childhood and TAFE.” (AEU)

“There are opportunities to link VET, Learn Locals and early childhood services to support seamless pathways for students through the entire education spectrum, including pre and post school ages, but barriers to this are the competitive funding arrangements…and thin markets in some areas. Positive outcomes are not always possible, rivalry is increased and partnerships are not fostered.” (NWVR staff)

“The relationship between schools, early childhood providers, VET and non-government schools is missing in regions.” (RSG central staff)

The Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) identified the early childhood to primary and the primary to secondary transitions as priorities for the department. VCOSS highlighted that there is “limited middle years’ transition planning” and argued the department should provide flexible learner options at the primary to secondary transition to stop many “disengaged students falling through the cracks”.

Schools While schools and principals recognise transition planning should be a consideration in any changes to regional services, they identified many other areas as being of greater importance to them. Most principals reported in consultation sessions and submissions that they thought transition planning is being handled “reasonably well” by schools.

Early childhood A number of stakeholders (early childhood peak bodies and sector, local government, other government departments) drew particular attention to of the need to improve transition planning at the early childhood to school stage.

The early childhood sector and peak bodies called on the department to commit money, resources and time to encourage linkages between early childhood and schools to develop an effective and valuable transition process for learners. Our analysis from early childhood consultation sessions and submissions has identified that there is a consensus through the sector that the early childhood to schools transition has been neglected. The early childhood sector feel that many schools are uninterested in forging better relationships with early childhood, and it is largely the department’s role to facilitate better cohesion across this transition point.

“Regions have an important role in supporting transitions and acting as a broker between early childhood and schools, making services aware of what is available and making both early childhood settings and schools feel part of the system.” (ECDAG)

Some in the early childhood sector have suggested the creation of a new role to handle this transition point. A ‘Child or Case Manager’ role could be created to manage the transition, to ensure key data on the child and family is not lost and to facilitate better communication and partnerships between early childhood providers and schools. This role could help to ensure a “seamless transition”. Some early childhood participants suggested this role could follow the learner through each transition across the 0-18 spectrum. Some in the early childhood sector indicated that the department should consider bringing kindergartens under the school umbrella. This would allow for “commonalities across language, policies, and KPIs” which would help bridge the divide. It was stated that such a move could encourage people to work across both sectors, expanding their knowledge and expertise of each.

A number of local government areas (LGAs) and councils also raised this transition point in their submissions. In particular, they argued that the department has often overlooked staffing and funding for the early childhood to schools transition and urged DET to create “strong linkages between playgroups, kindergartens and schools”. LGAs and councils also noted the opportunity for them to be consulted and included in this process.

“One of the biggest problems preventing an effective service delivery stem for families is the integration process between early childhood and schools. Relationships between local government and schools needs to be strengthened to improve this.” (Melton City Council)

VET and other pathways Government agencies, such as Regional Development Victoria (RDV) and the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA), emphasised the need for the department to focus on building better relationships and formal transition processes. Both RDV and VRQA focused on post-secondary transition as an area that could be improved. Both emphasised that transition point weakness had an impact on the work they undertake and how ready learners are for further education and the workforce.

“DET needs to do more work on the transition from secondary school, to VET and tertiary education. Often career advisers have dual roles and this impacts on their ability to give learners the advice they need.” (RDV)

“A number of mechanisms exist for transitions to employment but evidence suggests this is not working as it should.” (VRQA)

VET peak bodies were particularly interested in post-secondary transition, and urged the department to take a more “active” role. The Adult, Community and Further Education Board (ACFE Board) emphasised that organisations outside the education sector, such as local and state government, should be included in student pathway and transition planning.

“The regions need to work better with local and state government on student pathways across transitions. There is a need to broker alternative education programs.” (ACFE Board) 3. A clear strategic direction is needed to focus and inspire the education sector

While the consultation process did not explicitly seek views on the strategic direction for education in Victoria, stakeholders identified a lack of strategic direction and long-term vision, including clarity around roles and governance, as key concerns.

The key themes addressed in this section are: There is consensus that a shared strategic direction is missing, but that the Education State strategy may provide the vision and direction the sector is looking for. Principals, as well as early childhood services, want to see increased advocacy for government schools and the broader system. Schools and other services in the sector are looking for more consistent communication from DET and a clear line of sight which would clarify accountabilities across the department.

3.1.There is consensus that a shared strategic direction is missing, but that the Education State strategy may provide the vision and direction the sector is looking for

There was consensus across the sector that since the most recent restructure a central education vision and narrative has been lost. The review of input into the consultation reveals a disconnect between stakeholders across the 0-18 spectrum, regional staff and central staff, and staff on the ground as opposed to those co-located. This may be improved through a shared vision.

“There is no clear vision for the future of government schools.” (NEVR Principal Network)

Refocusing on a shared goal across 0-18 that drives a commitment to education and a clearly defined purpose for the regions is considered critical, with some principals and school stakeholders considering any significant changes not underpinned by a clear strategy and purpose to be “a waste”.

Many stakeholders are aware of the Education State consultation, and are questioning what the initiative will mean. There is some hope that once the Education State is defined, and adequate resources are delivered, it may refocus and unite the sector. “I’m hopeful about the Education State big picture and what it will look like. That will give us a narrative and everyone will know where we fit.” (Senior Adviser)

3.2.Principals, as well as early childhood services, want to see increased advocacy for government schools and the broader system

Schools and early childhood services consider the level of advocacy for government schools and services as inadequate. A need has been identified for stronger government support to improve community perceptions of government schools and services, and to help the sector to feel appreciated for the work they deliver.

These two groups particularly want to see senior levels of government advocating publically for government schools and services. This would help those across the sector feel a connection to a higher purpose, and a sense of pride in their work.

They believe a ‘re-branding’ is needed for public education, highlighting the positive aspects of government schools and services.

“We need advocacy and re-stilled pride in the state school system.” (NEVR Principal Network)

3.3.Schools and other services in the sector are looking for more consistent communication from DET and a clear line of sight which would clarify accountabilities across the department

Three key issues contributing to confusion among schools, early childhood, and VET providers were clearly identified through the consultation. These were a lack of clarity and integration in: communication points of contact governance and accountability. Communication Communication from the department is perceived as inconsistent and “ad hoc”, and the lines of communication unclear for all. Principals stated that not all stakeholders get the information they need when they need it (or at all), and the VPA has labelled communication as “confused”. Regional staff spoke of instances where the central office bypassed the regions and communicated directly with schools and providers, contributing to confusion around lines of communication.

Principals too are sometimes bypassing the regions: “many of us don’t know some of the regional staff and what they do and we can’t reach them, so we skip them and go to the centre”.

Points of contact Contact points are also unclear, with schools and early childhood services reporting that they do not know who to contact when they have an issue. This is compounded by a lack of understanding of the roles of regions and central office. This was a common complaint heard during the consultation, with most expressing there was no clear understanding of contact points.

A common suggestion heard was that the department keep a directory, updated at least annually, outlining regional roles and responsibilities, central roles and responsibilities, and contact details for specific needs. An alternative suggestion is to ensure each school and service has a designated point of contact at the regional office who can either assist them or direct them on as appropriate, making regions the first port of call in all circumstances.

“Schools don’t know whether to contact [central] or the regions and vice versa – we need clear roles for what central office does, and better lines of communication.” (Senior Adviser)

“Role demarcation and a clear regional contact directory is important.” (SWVR Principal Reference Group)

“There should be one place to call with any problem that can redirect you.” (SWVR Principal Network)

Governance and accountability To help address the issues discussed above, there is a need to clarify the roles and accountabilities of the Early Childhood and School Education Group (ECSEG), Regional Services Group (RSG), Strategy and Review Group (SRG), the central office and the regions as part of any new arrangements. Principals, peak bodies and early childhood services have raised questions around the functions of RSG and ECSEG in particular – what their purpose is, why they are different, and to whom they are accountable. Principals have called for more clarity around relationships between the centre, regions, networks and schools. VASSP has commented that the “current DET structure is difficult for principals to navigate, and to know who is responsible for various areas”. Principals reflected this in their own consultation sessions.

“What is the purpose of a region? Is it supporting principals in education and learning?” (Principal Reference Group and School Stakeholder Reference Group)

“The roles and responsibilities of regional staff are not clear.” (Expert Principals Advisory Group)

Regional staff groups called for the relationship between central and regional offices to be enhanced.

Feedback loops also need to be established and maintained to ensure feedback from schools and services can be fed through to the central office, not just the other way around.

“There should be a better feedback loop from local problems up to the centre.” (ECDAG)

4. Enhanced roles would be valued, providing they are resourced effectively

The consultation paper outlines a number of enhanced roles for both the central office and the regional office. These include, but are not limited to, providing increased professional and wellbeing support to schools and early childhood, improving communication channels, providing advice on ‘best practice’ policy, and facilitating better collaborative exchanges through the education sector.

The key themes addressed in this section are: The enhanced roles in the consultation paper were viewed favourably. Professional and wellbeing support for school principals was seen as critical. Enhanced roles should encourage stronger partnership building to strengthen whole of government partnerships, including with local government. Enhanced roles are needed to incorporate, for example, data management and sharing. 4.1.The enhanced roles in the consultation paper were viewed favourably

In general, stakeholders (staff, principals and schools, early childhood sector and VET) were comfortable with the enhanced roles described in the consultation paper as long as they are appropriately resourced.

It is worth noting though that most stakeholders commented that the roles are described vaguely. They stated that while ‘more support’, ‘better communication’, and ‘provide expert advice’ obviously sound good and are welcome, it is unclear what this would mean for frontline services. Participants from across the education sector, including education peak bodies, consistently gave the feedback that they require more detail on these enhanced roles.

There is a mixture of views on what services should be provided centrally, at a regional level, or locally.

“Many of the enhanced roles for the regions could be provided from the centre (e.g. emergency management, workforce management strategies, advice on contemporary teaching and learning, VCE, and AusVELS implementation).” (VASSP)

A number of stakeholders, including early childhood providers and principals, highlighted the need for any enhanced roles to focus on early intervention for children / learners. Both identified this as a critical area of need due to the dramatic increase in the number of children / learners with complex health and wellbeing issues. Our analysis of the consultation data shows a broad consensus of the need for the department to do more to support early interventions. The early childhood sector identifies challenges with policy, funding and support as the reasons for this.

“Early intervention is crucial to minimising harm and ensuring student and community wellbeing.” (Primary Care Partnerships representative)

“Early intervention needs to drastically improve. Children coming in to Prep have more issues than ever before.” (NEVR Principal Network) Early childhood Many in the early childhood sector echoed principals’ sentiments around trade-offs and frontline funding. The majority of the early childhood sector saw these issues as of even more importance to their sector given the perceived lack of funding and support that the sector receives. In particular, the sector wants to see the department consider the role of local government in any enhanced roles. For the early childhood sector, local government has a key role to play in “advocacy, partnerships with agencies, funding opportunities, infrastructure planning, and identifying vulnerability.” ECDAG highlighted the need for the department to be clear about professional support for early childhood managers, as currently they are not receiving the support required.

Schools Our analysis of principals’ feedback in consultation sessions and submissions has identified a number of recurring observations and concerns. Principals are broadly satisfied with the enhanced roles as they are described, but are concerned about trade-offs. While not proposed in the consultation paper, principals indicated that they do not want any enhanced roles to come at the expense of frontline teaching services, and do not want to “lose one service to get another”. Most also highlighted the requirement to reduce bureaucracy and new processes that would otherwise add to their workload.

“We are happy with the enhanced roles outlined in the paper. However, there is a trust issue and we are concerned about what would be traded off to achieve this. Transparency would be critical in any changes.” (SWVR Principal Reference Group)

“There is a concern that any enhanced roles would result in the creation of a new process that would get passed back to principals.” (VPA)

VET The VET sector highlighted in their submissions the need for enhanced roles to better support the VET sector. Areas of consensus include the need for the department to recognise that enhanced roles should be fit for purpose and recognise different needs. For example, “a larger TAFE does not need support in the way that smaller community houses do.” Another area of consensus is that enhanced roles need to recognise the different needs of smaller and remote services. The sector has also complained that there is a lack of specialist knowledge regarding VET within the region. LLENs highlighted their need for greater support to build capacity and expertise. In particular, they emphasised the need for local experts, local projects, local infrastructure and local government. “Learn Locals need more support – many have low capacity, lack of skills and poor governance. They need to build the roles, capacity, skills and expertise to ensure that people providing support have the necessary skillset.” (Local learning and employment network)

“Every regional council should have a dedicated regional officer again – this would significantly improve our ability to respond to the region’s needs.” (ACFE)

Staff Regional staff are looking for policy consistency that permeates from the centre to the regions. Along with this consistency, there is a desire for a greater emphasis on policy implementation and the local considerations that are required for implementation to work. They also emphasised the need for the department and regional staff to understand the roles of different divisions within the department.

4.2.Professional and wellbeing support for school principals was seen as critical

Principals and other school stakeholders, such as the VPA, want more mentoring, coaching and support for new and acting principals. This concern was also raised by Senior Advisers. While it is noted by principals that there is “great” support through the regions during induction and the first few weeks of becoming a principal, ongoing mentoring and development is lacking.

“For new principals there is an increase in the level of complexity [of the role] and limited support.” (SWVR Principal Network)

The present system depends on current, experienced principals to mentor new principals. While this is happening well in pockets, it relies on the individual to maintain the mentoring relationship, and would benefit from facilitation and support through the regions. The burden on those mentoring can also be great.

“The mentoring role principals provide can create significant workload. Principals are happy to do these roles but needy principals create a lot of work.” (NWVR Principal Network)

Principals said the current system does not provide the ongoing focus on principal training that is needed for principals to grow in their roles. Ongoing professional development is needed even for experienced principals, particularly to build their coaching skills to help them adequately mentor and support inexperienced principals. Many principals are unaware of, or cannot access, the other support and professional development functions that exist, such as the Bastow program for new principals. ECSEG drew attention to the resources available to support new principals, but conceded that many are not aware these resources exist, and they therefore need to be communicated better.

Rural principals and principals of small schools have additional development and support needs. As noted in 2.3, they are faced with the same compliance and operational requirements as large schools, without access to the same resources or the opportunity to delegate tasks. This is compounded for the physically isolated rural principals.

The pressure on principals has led to serious wellbeing issues in some instances and increasing support should be addressed as a priority (see also 2.3).

“The system is in an emotional state. There are a lot of principals who wonder how they’ll get through the next week. They worry about getting there because of the pressure they’re under.” (APF)

“The wellbeing of principals is paramount. The region is threadbare with people on the ground and cannot cover it adequately.” (SWVR Principal Reference Group)

4.3.Enhanced roles should encourage stronger partnership building to strengthen whole of government partnerships, including with local government

During the consultation, there was significant discussion of the benefits and purpose of partnerships, both within the education sector, and between the education sector and others. The dialogue around partnerships often lacked detail about the specifics of partnerships, though a number of examples of partnerships are provided in this section.

Principals Principals generally recognise the value of partnerships and acknowledge that where they exist they have been useful. However, principals have noted that often partnership building is left to them to initiate. There is a desire for the regions to take more of an active role in facilitating partnerships, but principals want to retain “the option” of whether they participate in any new partnership arrangements.

“The development of partnerships is currently left to entrepreneurial principals. Networks should drive this.” (NEVR Principal Reference Group) “Efficiency can be achieved by creating and managing school partnerships that are needs based and reciprocal in nature.” (Assistant Principal)

Broader education sector The majority of the broader education sector (regional staff, early childhood, VET and peak bodies) gave feedback regarding the importance of partnership building between the different sectors within the education system. This was primarily focused on linkages through the education sector and across the 0-18 spectrum. There is consensus across these stakeholder groups about the opportunity for the department to build sustainable partnerships between early childhood, schools and VET providers in the regions. There is a hope that if implemented correctly, these partnerships will help facilitate better transitions.

“There is a need for closer partnerships between schools, VET provision and TAFE.” (ISV)

“Partnership building and brokerage across the sectors can be strengthened. Partnerships can help to reduce duplication of our effort.” (SWVR staff)

“Building better partnerships is important but it is resource intensive and time consuming. It is possible that payment of a small stipend to councillors may attract people with the skills and experience to ‘connect the dots’.” (ACFE Regional Councils)

Early childhood The early childhood sector in particular, emphasised the need for the department and/or regions to facilitate better partnerships between early childhood and schools, arguing that “leaving it to individuals” isn’t working.

“A greater focus on partnerships building across the education system is desirable.” (NEVR early childhood)

“We need stronger partnerships with families, schools and intervention services.” (SWVR early childhood)

Some in the early childhood sector outlined that there is a lack of understanding in metro / the central department about community and rural partnerships, highlighting this an area for improvement.

“Metro has difficulty in understanding how community / rural partnerships work” (NEVR early childhood) The sector has also urged the department to use the initiatives that already exist to build these partnerships. Two examples that were given at a number of the early childhood consultation sessions were Best Start partnerships and Children and Youth Area Partnerships.

Beyond the sector In addition to the 0-18 focus, there is consensus from consultation participants that the department needs to do significantly more to establish and maintain relationships / partnerships with stakeholders outside the education sector, in particular with other government departments and agencies such as DHHS, DOJR, and RDV. There is a consensus that many areas exist in which collaboration would be of benefit to learners.

Peak bodies within the education sector in particular have identified the need for partnerships with other government bodies in their submissions and interviews. Our findings show the majority of education peak bodies generally welcome the whole of government approach in area-based partnerships, but indicate it is too early to tell if the partnerships are going to deliver results. ECDAG and VASSP have identified the key government agencies for the department / regions to form stronger partnerships with as LGAs, DHHS, LLENs and the police.

“Stronger links, including accountability and coordination, need to be forged with DHHS, LLENs, local council, community police and VCAL providers.” (VASSP Eastern Group)

Other government departments / agencies also identified the opportunity for DET to build stronger relationships and forge partnerships with them where there are areas of shared interest. There is currently a significant level of frustration from these stakeholder groups regarding the “missed opportunity” in forging closer partnerships. There is also a recognition that this may be due to the strain that is currently on regional staff following the previous restructure. A number of stakeholders highlighted the forums which exist that DET could get involved with to facilitate better inter-departmental communication. They stated that DET often does not take up the opportunity.

“Regions…pay lip service to other government departments and their role”. (DHHS)

DOJR, DHHS and Primary Care Partnerships emphasised areas of cross-over, such as community health and wellbeing, where increased collaboration and partnerships would be welcome. DOJR highlighted disadvantaged youth, early intervention and crime prevention as three key areas where the two departments should be collaborating more effectively. DOJR also gave the example of the Taskforce 1000 project, which targets the 1000 most vulnerable children as an area where stronger partnerships with DET would be desirable.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and VCOSS emphasised the need for DET to build stronger partnerships with local councils in an effort to assist the education sector in early interventions.

“There is a need to strengthen partnerships between local councils and schools. Infrastructure is one example of where this would be beneficial.” (MAV)

“There is a need to enhance collaboration and partnerships between stakeholders particularly at the early intervention and preventive stage.” (VCOSS)

RDV emphasised the need and opportunity for better partnerships with DET. They emphasised that there is a clear opportunity for DET to partner with RDV on priority projects such as the Beyond the Bell.

4.4.Enhanced roles are needed to incorporate, for example, data management and sharing

A consistent issue raised by consultation participants was that while the department collects substantial quantities of data, it does not appear to share this data in a timely fashion. Additionally, this data is not presented in a straightforward way that is easy to use. The department could play an enhanced role by sharing and communicating research and data with key stakeholders on a regular and timely basis.

The opportunity and challenge of data use was consistently raised across all stakeholder groups and geographic locations. There is acceptance across the sector of the need to modernise this function to deliver targeted and innovative education strategies for learners.

Staff emphasised that their access to, and ability to use, data is crucial for the work they do with schools on school improvement. In particular, local data enables staff to work with schools and design local strategies for local needs. Staff acknowledged that this is working reasonably well at the moment, but recognised improvements could be made which would make their job easier. RSG in particular highlighted the lack of data support as a key area for improvement. Peak bodies, such as the VPA and VCOSS, noted that there is a lack of regional and network data, which makes it hard to “identify goals and priorities and allocate resources.” Both urged the department to innovate and modernise its “data function” to tailor education strategies and deliver targeted outcomes.

The early childhood sector raised the issue of data as one of particular importance to them, emphasising that accurate and timely data sharing can help lead to early interventions and assist them to achieve their goals. Early childhood stakeholders highlighted data on birth, population, socio-economic, vulnerability, and early intervention statistics, as information the department should share regularly.

“The access to up-to-date data and statistics is absolutely of critical importance to what we do. The department collects a huge amount of data but often this is not shared with us. We need access to a central source where data on early years is provided.” (SEVR early childhood)

Local government stakeholders repeatedly spoke of the “rich data” the department collects on both early years and schools but often this is not shared and when it is, not in a timely fashion. Opportunities exists for the department to work more closely with local government around data use and analysis.

“Regions could provide more support in helping local government with how to use robust data and information. For example, the Municipal Early Years Plans produced by councils would benefit from more engagement and data input from DET.” (MAV)

Academics Our analysis of submissions from the academic sector has identified a clear and passionate consensus on the need for the department to better utilise data. Academics and think-tanks argued that sharing data is not enough, schools need to be better supported to collect evidence on student learning, such as achievement and progress data, and use it to improve teacher performance. If schools are given the tools to track student progress and teachers receive training on how to use data they can improve their day-to-day targeted teaching.

The Grattan Institute spoke in considerable detail in their submission about the approach the department should take to data. They argue that it is not enough to collect data and share it, the right data has to be given to the right people at the right time and then it needs to be applied properly. This is an important consideration for the department as schools and teachers have reported they are trying to improve their use of data and targeted teaching, but this is often met with limited training and support. Many report that on top of their already heavy workload they are not making the advances they should with this.

“The schools that are making most progress in collecting and using data to target teaching are those that are getting the most support from their education systems. This includes programs such as the Early Action for Success (NSW DEC), and the efforts of the Parramatta Catholic Diocese.” (Grattan Institute)

An opportunity exists to integrate data across the 0-18 spectrum to facilitate better understanding of learner needs and the development continuum. Integrating data would help the department to make linkages across the key transition points and allow data to follow the learner and for local solutions to meet local needs.

5. Senior Advisers are unable to provide the support that schools want and need, and that they want to give

The Senior Adviser role was continuously raised throughout the consultation, particularly in terms of the number of schools Senior Advisers work with. It was agreed by both schools and Senior Advisers (and other DET staff both central and regional) this number is too great, skewing the focus of Senior Advisers to performance management, rather than support to schools in other areas.

While the Senior Adviser role was not included in the consultation paper as a key area for consultation, the consultation paper notes the “dual responsibility of the regions for providing hands-on support and interventions to guide school improvement efforts and build capability, as well as monitoring the performance of schools and school principals” – fundamental aspects of the Senior Adviser role. Consultation participants were asked to consider this dual purpose, and discuss the appropriate balance between support and performance management.

The key themes addressed in this section are: More Senior Advisers are needed, with a focus on fewer schools and school improvement. There are mixed views on separating the performance management and support functions of Senior Advisers, and on balance principals want more support. Senior Advisers need more support and professional development, including the introduction of an Assistant Senior Adviser role. Relationships are critical for the Senior Adviser role to be delivered successfully, and Senior Advisers and principals need more face-to-face time.

5.1.More Senior Advisers are needed, with a focus on fewer schools and school improvement

There is a consensus across both schools and DET staff (particularly regional staff) that since the previous restructure, Senior Advisers’ workloads have become unmanageable, as they are expected to work with far too many schools.

The key concerns around the number of schools managed, from both Senior Advisers and schools, are: Schools report seeing their Senior Adviser in person rarely, if ever As contact is rare, schools believe that any unprompted contact between the two parties will be to address an issue, not to offer support, meaning positive interactions are few and far between Strong relationships between the two parties, vital to the success of the Senior Adviser role (see 5.4), are unable to be built without more face-to-face, positive interactions The number of schools managed means Senior Advisers are forced to focus on meeting the requirements of performance management, rather than providing support to schools There is no time to provide schools with urgently needed school improvement support.

Senior Advisers reported the challenges they face in fulfilling their role in supporting schools due to the large number of schools and the in some cases large geographical distances involved. The majority of Senior Advisers involved in this consultation felt that the full list of current demands on them , including principal selection and performance management, cannot realistically be met. They felt there was no time left to provide proactive support.

It was raised by both Senior Advisers and other school stakeholders that the ratio of Senior Advisers to schools is a key factor in why principals feel unsupported and abandoned. Senior Advisers were clear that the lack of support they provide is not through a lack of wanting, just time pressures, and some principals acknowledged this. “It seems that our Senior Adviser wants to support us as much as possible, but [they are] completely stretched in the current role.” (SEVR Principal Network)

This has led to a situation where some principals claim to have never had contact with their Senior Adviser.

At present, Senior Advisers may manage on average 50 schools (some manage up to 65), with substantially different student profiles and educational needs. Senior Advisers and schools stakeholders have indicated that between 10 and 25 would be a more manageable number and would allow Senior Advisers to focus more on support and school improvement.

“A [Senior Adviser] with 10 principals would enable real support and performance management born out of direct knowledge.” (SEVR Principal Network)

There is further need to clearly define the role of Senior Advisers. According to some Senior Advisers, there is a lack of understanding on the part of schools as to what the Senior Adviser role is. There is also lack of clarity around the level of authority of a Senior Adviser, for both Senior Advisers and schools. Principals have said that the lines of authority are unclear for roles such as Senior Advisers. Principals also do not necessarily understand the measures of accountability they are held to. This can be problematic for the relationship.

“I’ll be introduced as the principal’s boss, but when push comes to shove, you hear ‘you’ve got no right to be here’ – the lines are blurred…” (Senior Adviser)

Principals want Senior Advisers to build strong relationships with their schools, to facilitate an understanding of the school and its context, and the role of the principal in the school, and then provide development support, coaching through agreed improvement projects, and facilitate access to expertise where the Senior Adviser does not have the knowledge.

“In an ideal world Senior Advisers would facilitate professional communities of practice. They may take some of the administrative burden [from schools]. [The role is] designed to build capacity for principals.” (Regional Director, NWVR) “Senior Adviser should sit down with the principal and leadership team to focus on instructional leadership…they should meet with the principal one- to-one at least once per term…this model will improve the wellbeing of principals.” (SWVR Principal Network)

5.2.There are mixed views on separating the performance management and support functions of Senior Advisers, and on balance principals want more support

Senior Advisers have reported that they often only have time to focus on performance management of schools, and struggle to provide the proactive support that principals have called for. Schools too have identified this as a core issue. A common comment from principals is that it feels like Senior Advisers are there to performance manage, not support. There is great concern among principals about the balance between the two functions, and suggestions it is not anywhere near 50:50 at present. Principals want more support and less performance management.

“The focus should be on capacity building rather than a box-ticking exercise.” (NEVR Principal Network)

“We need more support and less performance management.” (NEVR Principal Reference Group)

Senior Advisers acknowledge the imbalance, which they attribute to time constraints due to the number of schools they manage (see 5.1).

“It’s a struggle because of sheer volume. You have to do that accountability stuff because we [Senior Advisers] are equally accountable, and what time you have left you put into support, but with the amount of schools Senior Advisers have that support goes by the wayside.” (Senior Adviser)

One Senior Adviser claimed that the direction from the government following the previous restructure was that Senior Advisers should not form relationships with schools, and should focus purely on performance management. This Senior Adviser noted that this is not the direction at present in their region, but that some regions may still be adhering to this, and may be following a more disciplinary approach.

“The balance has been too much on the performance management side and a punitive approach. That’s not how you get the best out of people. We need a more positive approach.” (Senior Adviser) The majority of school stakeholders and DET regional staff have called for an increase in the number of Senior Advisers, or the addition of an ‘Assistant Senior Advisor’ role, to allow the Senior Adviser to deliver more support to schools (see 5.1 and 5.3).

It has also been suggested that the performance management and support functions of the Senior Adviser role could be split into two separate roles, however there were mixed opinions from both DET staff and school stakeholders regarding this. School stakeholders were more likely than staff to suggest splitting the functions.

Those who felt the role should be split noted a natural incompatibility between the two tasks. Some principals also noted that there is an issue with trust if someone who is there to support you also assesses your performance development.

“How can someone who supports also do performance management? Those who can move between the two roles are a rarity. There’s a psychological set of skills to be an assessor and to be a supporter. It would be much easier if one person is supporting and someone else is assessing.” (APF)

“It can be hard to trust someone to support you if you know they are also ones who will pass your PDP.” (SWVR Principal Network)

“A coaching role is not compatible with performance management and the school review process.” (NEVR Principal Reference Group)

Others, mainly regional staff, felt that the two aspects combined allowed for a more holistic understanding of the issues and the formation of a deeper relationship with schools, rather than simply addressing issues.

“It is a misnomer to suggest the two [roles] could be separated.” (SEVR leader)

5.3.Senior Advisers need more support and professional development, including the introduction of an Assistant Senior Adviser role

A key function of the Senior Adviser role, when being fulfilled as intended, is to provide expert advice to schools, particularly around school improvement. While many Senior Advisers are former principals, that experience is not always current, and Senior Advisers identified a need for ongoing professional development and access to the latest research in order to be able to provide this expert advice and support to schools.

Senior Advisers felt it was up to their own initiative to stay up-to-date and to find development opportunities, but felt this should be a systematic approach, with research-based, ongoing professional development.

“If we’re going to roll out a better school improvement agenda we need to support Senior Advisers to have the capacity to do that.” (Senior Adviser)

While many school stakeholders reported positive relationships with their Senior Advisers, the majority raised the experience and knowledge of Senior Advisers in general as an issue. Principals want Senior Advisers to be a former principal, with a successful education background, and to be up-to-date with the current school environment. A major complaint of principals was that some Senior Advisers do not have an education background. They argued that Senior Advisors who had never been principals themselves were not equipped to go into schools and make recommendations.

“Senior Advisers should be ex-principals or have an education background. They should understand the 0-18 pathway and the key transitions within that, and take a system view. They need to have strong interpersonal skills.” (NEVR Principal Network)

“Senior Advisers and Assistant Senior Advisers [if introduced] should have a strong educational background.” (SWVR Principal Network)

“There are Senior Advisers that have no education experience as teachers or principals telling experienced principals what and how to do their jobs.” (AEU submission quoting a principal)

The Senior Adviser role would function more efficiently if a role was introduced which reported directly to the Senior Adviser. This person would take on some administrative duties allowing the Senior Adviser to spend more time with schools.

There were many ideas on how this could work. One principal network suggested two Assistant Senior Advisors manage data, instructional leadership, pedagogy, curriculum and assessment support, wellbeing and engagement and school improvement and management to schools, while the Senior Adviser manages facilities, OHS etc. In this scenario, the Assistant Senior Advisers would spend the most time with school principals, at least once per term. Both the Senior Adviser and Assistant Senior Advisers would work with principals through networks. Others suggested an Assistant Senior Adviser could work with schools to help to relieve some of their administrative burden, and the Senior Adviser could focus more on relationship building, facilitating partnerships, networks, support and school improvement.

Ultimately, the message was that Senior Advisers either needed to be increased, or a support role needed to be introduced. Between these two options, there was not a clear preference either way from principals. Senior Advisers spoke more in favour of having more Senior Advisers, rather than introducing a direct report role.

“The Assistant Senior Adviser should work with 15-17 schools. They should visit schools and sit down with the principal and leadership team to focus on instructional leadership.” (SWVR Principal Network)

5.4.Relationships are critical for the Senior Adviser role to be delivered successfully, and Senior Advisers and principals need more face-to-face time

Throughout the consultation process, relationships have been identified as critical to regional services delivery. This applies equally to the Senior Adviser role. Principals consistently spoke of the importance of their personal relationships with their Senior Adviser, saying that the regions need to have relationships that are meaningful with principals, and that a Senior Adviser needs fewer schools so they can build that relationship.

Principals want a relationship where they can call their Senior Adviser when they need support or advice. Where the relationships are ineffective, the work of Senior Advisers is ineffective, according to the majority of principals.

Senior Advisers spoke of being severely inhibited in delivering the necessary support principals require due to poor relationships. A significant part of this problem is that because of the number of schools they are currently responsible for, they do not have the time to develop these relationships (see 5.1). Another part of the problem is that the authority that Senior Advisers have over schools is unclear (see 5.1).

Networks are a useful way for Senior Advisers to communicate with their principals, however they are unlikely to be invited to attend if the relationship does not exist. With fewer schools to manage, Senior Advisers could spend more face- to-face time with principals, which would help to develop stronger relationships. How they, and other senior regional staff, interact with networks to provide expertise is a critical component. “Networks give [Senior Advisers] an opportunity to set a direction as well. Not every Senior Adviser is able to do that [due to poor relationships]. Networks don’t always invite us in…When we can speak though, it gives us the opportunity to address the group. When it works well it works and when it doesn’t it’s a problem – it’s a gap. It’s very important to be able to provide them [networks] with information and support and direction.” (Senior Adviser)

6. Student wellbeing and engagement is a major priority, and the provision of SSSOs is a key area of concern for schools and staff

Student wellbeing and engagement was consistently identified throughout the consultation as a major priority, particularly for schools, and a key area where additional support and expertise through the regions is required.

In relation to this, SSS was also raised frequently in discussions around student health and wellbeing. The consultation paper outlines the important functions that SSSOs deliver in supporting students who have additional needs or who are at risk of disengagement. SSSOs include psychologists, guidance officers, speech pathologists and social workers. The consultation paper identified SSSO management as one of a number of options which could reduce the management burden currently experienced by principals and networks, and asked for feedback from the sector.

References to ‘student wellbeing and engagement’ throughout this report encompass student health, wellbeing and engagement, including the health, wellbeing and engagement of learners with a disability and other vulnerable learner groups.

The key themes addressed in this section are: Student wellbeing and engagement is a priority across the sector. There is a need for expert advice and support to deal with complex cases. Need exists to increase funding to facilitate increased SSS to meet increased demand and/or redefine the role of SSSOs. Mixed views exist regarding who should manage SSSOs, but there is consensus that the current model is not sustainable. Co-location is the preferred option of the SSSO workforce but principals have differing views. 6.1.Student wellbeing and engagement is a priority across the sector

Principals consistently reflected that they are struggling to focus on student wellbeing and engagement, and that this is a priority area of expertise not currently provided adequately throughout the regions. The increase in need for support in this area appears to be due to two key factors – rising demand, as the number of learners with complex health and wellbeing needs has increased dramatically over the past decade, and increased operational requirements accompanied by a decrease in operational support through the regions.

“A lot of expert knowledge walked out the door in the last reform.” (SEVR staff)

“The removal of positions such as Literacy and Numeracy Support Officers, Koorie Support Officers and Reading Recovery tutors impacted disproportionately on vulnerable students who had the greatest need for the additional learning support that they provided.” (AEU)

“The increase in the number of students coming to school with significant health and wellbeing issues has trebled in the last 10 years. Specialist support in this area is completely insufficient. We don’t have the access to the specialists we need in schools.” (NWVR Principal Network)

Lack of support in this area is impacting on schools’ ability to meet learner needs. Principals in particular highlighted this issue as one that is preventing teachers from focusing on education outcomes. There is an almost unanimous consensus from principals that the failure to increase SSS in line with the increase in the number of complex health and wellbeing cases has resulted in this issue causing a ‘bottleneck’ in education. Many, but not all, principals considered that this issue must be resolved before the department looks at issues like school improvement and curriculum. In the words of one principal, “if we don’t sort this out first, there’s no point in resolving all the other issues.”

PASS said that since the reduction in regional staff, they have seen less support for students with challenging behaviours, the demand for which is increasing. They emphasised that this is a problem particularly for rural schools. They, and many other school stakeholders, have called for more expert staff to visit schools and provide expertise. Similarly, the submission from the South Eastern Victorian Region (SEVR) Visiting Teacher Service spoke of a decrease in the delivery of face to face visiting teacher support to vulnerable children, and a decrease in access to professional development for visiting teachers. They attribute a decrease in staff morale to these factors. In another submission from a North Western Victorian Region (NWVR) visiting teacher, the struggle to meet increased demand with fewer numbers was noted.

VAEAI’s submission to this consultation noted that the visibility of the Koorie Education Coordinators (KECs) and the Koorie Engagement Support Officers (KESOs), based on anecdotal evidence given to them, has declined since the reduction in regional staff.

In addition, specialised regional staff feel that a lack of professional development is making it difficult for them to adequately address this concern.

6.2.There is a need for expert advice and support to deal with complex cases

Schools, early childhood providers and VET providers are faced with increasingly complex student and family cases, and the number of cases is increasing. Expertise and support through the regions is needed to help them to understand and manage these needs.

Schools and Senior Advisers Principals feel that current support around student wellbeing is insufficient, and that services are stretched too thin, which means students are not getting help when they need it (see also 6.1).

“A more holistic approach to supporting students’ wellbeing [is needed], especially [for] those [who have] fallen through the cracks.” (Principal Reference Group Reform Board and School Stakeholder Reference Group)

The majority of principals, and some Senior Advisers, believe that the department has not adequately acknowledged the level of complex cases and is not able to support schools to manage it.

“There’s an ever increasing number of extremely complex cases that require a team of professionals to enable the child to access education.” (Senior Adviser) “What is a critical incident? Where is a list? Calls need to be taken seriously and support needs to be provided for challenging behaviours of students and parents.” (SEVR Principal Network)

PASS said there needs to be greater access to psychiatrists and people with expertise in helping a school design a program for learners with challenging behaviours. They noted that this expertise does not need to be a permanent resource in schools, but rather an expert in the region who can go out to schools to offer expertise as needed. This would include helping schools to create student plans, and reviewing them regularly.

Senior Advisers spoke of the challenges in that the bureaucracy is too far removed from the experience of schools. Some argued that central office could not possibly assist a principal who is contacting them for support to manage an autistic student who is violent, noting that that is the type of situation principals and the regions face every day.

“…a significant cohort of learners are very diverse, vulnerable and disadvantaged because they can have complex needs; in particular EAL learners from refugee or asylum seeker backgrounds.” (Central staff)

In particular, the unique needs and variations between communities, and the increasingly high expectations of parents require tailored solutions and schools and services need support to manage these challenges.

“Region facilitation / coordination of local issues and connecting schools around, for example, radicalisation, out of home students and refugees is needed.” (SEVR Principal Network)

“We need the trusted relationships with regional staff who understand our context and can actively support us.” (NWVR Principal Network)

Schools have strongly expressed the need for access to more SSSOs to manage complex cases (see 6.4 and 6.5).

Early childhood Early childhood services have also highlighted limitations in accessing specialist support for children with additional needs. There is a consensus in the early childhood sector that they need access to health and wellbeing specialists just as much, if not more than, schools. “We need access to health and wellbeing experts just as much as schools. Often the communities we deal with have a greater need. Early intervention is key.” (SEVR early childhood)

Some early childhood participants in this consultation suggested skilling up the early childhood workforce to work with learners between specialist visits. This group also spoke of the impact of the upcoming NDIS, which may eliminate the need for such specialists in early childhood. They therefore suggested combining SSSOs and early childhood specialists into one workforce, so that they could work better through transitions and support each other.

VET and other pathways LLENs spoke of increasing the focus in early years on disadvantage and engagement to “break the cycle”, suggesting that disengagement in later years stems from the early years learning experience. This group also suggested the department draw on the learning from the Children and Youth Partnerships program which supports vulnerable and disengaged young people, to improve the expertise and support they provide.

LLENs also spoke of the additional resourcing needed to provide wellbeing and mental health support for learners in later years.

6.3.Need exists to increase the funding for SSS to meet increased demand and/or redefine the role

There is currently one SSSO to every 1,000 learners. The SSS workforce drew attention to this statistic to demonstrate why schools and the early childhood sector feel significantly unsupported in this area. SSSOs argue their workforce is underfunded for the health and wellbeing challenges facing the education sector. Our analysis of SSSO responses shows there is a high level of frustration among SSSOs, and morale is very low. Given the impact access to SSSOs has on the rest of the education system, this is a critical area for the department to consider in any regional services restructure.

“We feel removed / isolated from the regional structure in our networks. There are no clear communication channels.” (SSSO workshop)

“We are grossly under resourced. Executive principals have control over these SRP funds. Some are withholding money for reasons that are unclear. Funds earmarked for SSSOs should be used for their intended purpose.” (SSSO workshop) 6.4.Mixed views exist regarding who should manage SSSOs, but there is consensus that the current model is not sustainable

SSSOs want a long-term solution that enables them to best support young people. They identified establishing a sustainable model as the first priority for their sector. The CPSU submission highlighted that SSSOs have gone through four restructures since 2009, which has been disruptive and detrimental to morale in the workforce. The CPSU survey highlighted inconsistencies in “employment conditions, service delivery model, expectations of the service, principal network interest, and involvement in SSS” as the key issues with the current model.

The vast majority of SSSOs feel strongly that principals are not the appropriate people to manage them due to their lack of understanding about allied health, its complexities and personal development needs. The CPSU survey argued that principals have little understanding of their profession and they do not have the appropriate time and knowledge to manage the service. This results in a rushed, misinformed and misguided process. In addition, they are frustrated that SSS staff are rarely part of the decision-making process.

A possible conflict of interest exists in having principals as managers of SSSOs, as the principal is both client and performance evaluator of the SSSO. The SSSO workforce consistently raised this.

“To make more equal pay and work conditions, SSSOs would need to be managed by regions as opposed to various principals or schools.” (CPSU SSSO survey)

“SSS should not be working under principal governance as principals do not have the time or the understanding of our role to manage us properly. SSS understand the needs and operation of SSS and should be managed by the same.” (SSSO workshop)

The SSS sector generally advocated for a mixed network / regional model which would involve a Network Coordinator with an allied health background being responsible for budget and managing the service, the region responsible for providing payroll, HR and finance, and principals influencing priorities but not managing the service. SSSOs argue this would assist with the transparency of funding allocation. Principals Principals have also questioned the sustainability of the current management model, though often they recommended a different approach to that of the SSSO workforce. Principals complained that the Network Chair role is “very onerous, complex and time consuming.”

“Management of SSSOs…has been unreasonable and it is not sustainable!” (VASSP)

Our analysis of consultation responses also shows that principals are divided on whether SSSO management should remain in networks or sit at the regional level. However, there is a clear consensus amongst principals that they do not have the time to handle the administrative function of SSSO management. Whilst principals want the administrative burden removed, some want to retain “management control” of SSSOs.

“Administration of SSSOs [should] be taken away from networks – principals should not have responsibility for this.” (SWVR Principal Network)

“Regions, not networks should be responsible for the administration of SSSOs.” (VPA)

“SSSOs should stay within the network level with resource, and a financial management person.” (SEVR Principal Network)

6.5.Co-location is the preferred option for the SSSO workforce but principals have differing views

SSSOs are generally keen to be based together, near but not within, the schools they service, to strengthen their connections, build local knowledge and to provide professional support to one another. Our analysis shows that SSSOs have consistently said “co-location is essential to staff support and local relationships and knowledge.”

This is a view that visiting teachers agreed with. There is consensus in their submissions that they value co-location.

“Visiting teachers value co-location with other network or regional personnel such as SSSOs, school nurses, early childhood workers and KESOs due to a number of shared cases and the opportunity to share knowledge and work together on such cases.” (Visiting teacher) Principals Our analysis of responses shows that a range of views exist across schools and principals on this issue.

The APF emphasised the importance of having SSSOs based in the regions. The advantage with this model is that SSSOs would be able to work with a range of schools, depending on their expertise and specialisations, rather than the geographic area they are responsible for. Some principals argued during consultation sessions that student support services should be centrally located rather than moving to spaces available in schools.

Secondary school principals argued that co-location outside schools is not the appropriate management structure for SSSOs, emphasising instead the value to schools in SSSOs being directly managed by them. Secondary principals highlighted throughout the consultation process that they have “complained for years” about the “inadequate services provided to schools by SSSOs.” Secondary principals feel strongly that SSSOs based in schools is the appropriate way forward as it will help SSSOs build better relationships with students and staff, enable them to “make a difference,” and provide better professional support.

VASSP raised this point in their submission, arguing that SSS providers who are directly employed by schools are able to be more proactive in their role.

“The biggest advantage in schools directly employing their own SSSOs (or them being located in their schools) is that the SSSOs are able to take on proactive roles assisting with student wellbeing programs across the school rather than just doing ‘reactive’ on call casework” (VASSP)

When considering the most appropriate management, location and funding model for SSSOs, the department should try to address the competing views of the SSSO workforce and principals and schools, and in particular secondary school principals.

7. Additional support and specific expertise is needed to reduce the operational pressure on principals, and to support curriculum development and school improvement

The consultation paper discusses the need to provide additional expertise to principals and schools in five areas in particular: partnership building and brokerage across sectors; school improvement and management; curriculum, assessment and pedagogy; school operations; wellbeing and engagement. Principals considered the support of, and access to, experts in these areas as critical.

The key themes addressed in this section are: Opportunities exist to provide collective services to take operational pressure off principals. The school improvement agenda has been lost, and needs to become a focus once again. High demand exists for curriculum, assessment and pedagogy support.

7.1.Opportunities exist to provide collective services to take operational pressure off principals

As already raised in 2.3, principals have identified operational requirements as a significant burden, particularly primary schools and smaller schools. This includes OHS, facilities management, HR, compliance and policies. Principals feel this is taking them away from what they see as their core responsibility as education leaders, and reducing their ability to focus on the wellbeing of students, and more complex student cases (see 6.1 and 6.2). Many school sector peak bodies and Senior Advisers agreed.

“Educating kids is becoming more complex – why are we expecting people to teach and administer at the same time?” (Senior Adviser)

Principals were clear in their request for support in these administrative areas, and a solution may lie in the department providing collective services in operational areas, as well as making principals’ administrative duties simpler and more efficient by, for example, streamlining processes and creating a bank of sample proformas and communication templates. Senior Advisers and staff in general appeared to support the provision of collective services. Where these services should sit and how they should be provided was unclear, with suggestions including: at the regional or central level through networks with a local operations support person working in schools clustering rural and small schools with larger schools to share operational resources employing a highly qualified business manager to support a range of small and/or rural schools using an external service. While greater consistency may be achieved if such services are provided through the central office, it is thought there would be greater accessibility and understanding of contexts if services were provided locally.

“[Have a] person either at the network / regional level to oversee the public asset, like the old public works department or current practices in PPPs with an onsite or accessible facilities officer.” (Stakeholder forum participant)

“Have a local OHS person working with schools to ensure compliance. The role would be network-based. They need to be able to come out to the school in order to see the issue in context. This would mean there needs to be many people in these roles spread across the regions. The feeling is that people in central offices often have no idea about what is going on in regional areas.” (SWVR Principal Network)

“A school operations manager, split into technical (emergency management, finance, workforce planning) and human (SSSOs, complaints, workforce development, training).” (SWVR Principal Network)

“Use collective services more efficiently, share resources – finance, facilities etc.” (NWVR Principal Reference Group)

It should be noted that many principals simply did not care where such additional services were provided, as long as they were accessible when needed. The manner in which these services are provided and the experience principals have in their relations with the department, however, is considered extremely important and should represent a truly client-focused approach. For example, department staff paying attention to their “bedside manner” and setting high standards for their interactions with schools that ensure principals feel listened to and supported by someone who is knowledgeable, and that communication is clear, timely and easy for principals. Quality interactions that satisfy principals will help to rebuild trust between schools and the department.

The suggestion has also been made that government schools and Catholic and independent schools support each other to share information and facilities. In particular, there was agreement from Catholic and independent schools and the VRQA on this point. CEOM outlined that opportunities exist for Catholic and state schools to collaborate on the “joint provision (particularly in rural locations) of facilities, curriculum, staff and on joint projects.” “There are significant issues with the level of cooperation in relation to curriculum and school facilities at the local level between independent, government and Catholic schools.” (VRQA)

Principals are broadly comfortable with the legal and conduct and ethics services that are provided at a central level, and feel that this service is provided in a tailored and timely manner.

“Principals believe very ‘good’ service is that provided through the Legal Unit, and Conduct and Ethics Branch. These are examples of ‘specialist support’.” (VASSP)

7.2.The school improvement agenda has been lost, and needs to become a focus once again

It has been said that the school improvement agenda was a focus prior to the current arrangements, but has diminished in recent years, when it should be at the core of regional support. This point was raised by all stakeholders, strongly so by principals and Senior Advisers.

School stakeholders believe there is a greater role for the department to play in bringing more rigour and accountability to schools. Schools develop and submit to the department annual school plans, but they do not always receive feedback on the plans, and the targets are not tested with the region to ensure they are the right targets.

According to principals, there is limited professional learning for schools to support the implementation of a school strategic plan. Principals said a “lack of education direction” in the regions on teaching and learning is preventing schools from developing consistent and powerful teaching strategies.

There is also the need for expertise for the school review process, and to support underperforming schools and those in particularly challenging circumstances.

“We are lacking in the school improvement and management space, which links with curriculum and pedagogy. A distinct lack of work has been done in that space in the last iteration.” (Senior Adviser)

“School improvement is number one – we need to focus on teaching and learning.” (VPA interview)

“Our core purpose is teaching and learning. We need support behind this. We can’t do it alone – we’ve tried that under the existing model.” (NWVR Principal Reference Group) 7.3.High demand exists for curriculum, assessment and pedagogy support

Principals want better access to expertise around developing their curriculum, improving teacher practice and maximising assessment for learning.

They want ready access to external specialists when needed, and they want this expertise to come from people with recent experience and an understanding of local needs.

“We want to convey a clear message that anyone appointed to regional positions to support schools and principals should have extensive education backgrounds and preferably be either a current or ex-principal, or highly skilled teacher practitioner and not pseudo-educationalists.” (SWVR Principal Reference Group)

“In our discussions with Victorian schools, many school leaders and teachers have indicated that they are trying hard to improve their use of data and deliver targeted teaching. However, we have repeatedly heard statements such as ‘we don’t have a good model of what this looks like in practice’, ‘it’s not clear what type of assessment we should use, or ‘teachers don’t have the time / tools / resources to do this’.” (Grattan Institute)

“When trouble hits, we need regional level support on call and to be clear on who does what…we know they are stretched to the limit, but in the ideal world we would have someone on call when we need either curriculum or wellbeing support.” (SWVR Principal Reference Group)

The majority of principals want to be able to access this type of expertise on an as-needs basis, rather than having an in-school resource, as priorities and needs will change. The resource should be flexible and adaptable to local needs, recognising that there is never a ‘one size fits all’ solution.

“We don’t want a literacy person imposed on a school, but rather invited when the need arises...we would like access to expertise at an appropriate level, we want to be able to call upon expertise in curriculum or principal support as needed.” (SWVR Principal Reference Group)

“Access to expertise should be on an as needs basis…priorities will change from time to time.” (NWVR Principal Network) Schools also recognise the need to build their own internal capacity, so that they can rely less on external support, but the accessibility and availability of professional development from regions is problematic and inconsistent. Networks can play a role in providing this collegiate support and sharing resources. Like schools could cluster together to form new networks with the purpose of sharing best practice, research and work together on a viable curriculum (see also 8.2).

“High quality PD is not within the reach of school budgets so we are locked out. If the region can support high quality PD, that would be good (and the expenses taken out of the hands of schools with limited budgets.” (SWVR Principal Reference Group)

“[We need] more support and direction from regions to support professional learning in teaching and learning, and more professional learning opportunities at a network level, not just in [the central locations].” (NWVR Principal Reference Group)

Schools and regional staff, particularly Senior Advisers, have called for increased mentoring and ongoing professional development for all principals and teachers around curriculum development and pedagogy in particular. There is also a role for the department to be a ‘thought leader’ and share research and best practice with schools.

“There’s a lack of professional learning for principals, from the regions. Our region has tried to run sessions but nowhere near as many as previously. It diminishes our role as they don’t look to us for that anymore.” (Senior Adviser)

While there are opportunities for principals to access external training, such as Bastow, many principals are unaware of these programs, or Bastow is viewed as unaffordable and inaccessible. A suggestion is to fund and run Bastow programs through the regions, making it easier for rural and regional principals, and principals of small schools, to access the service.

“Not everyone can afford to go to Bastow. But if we ran that at a regional level everyone would have access.” (Senior Adviser)

“There hasn’t been much provided to schools around curriculum and pedagogy. We haven’t had the opportunity to address good leadership and how we learn, unless people go to Bastow themselves. And unfortunately the schools who need it the most don’t have the opportunity to go to Bastow.” (Senior Adviser) 8. Stakeholders are looking for a range of networks with broader representation

The consultation paper emphasised the important role networks play in facilitating strong professional relationships and encouraging collaboration. The paper outlined the need to identify any new and/or additional models for networks or partnerships that should be considered in any regional services restructure. The possible network models outlined include mandated networks between schools by geography, networks between schools with similar interests / issues, professional networks between principals, and cross-government networks.

The key themes addressed in this section are: Multiple networks are welcome, as long as each has a clear purpose and role. There should be a balance or choice of geographic or ‘like’ networks. Networks could involve early childhood, VET, Catholic and independent schools. Networks would benefit from administrative support.

8.1.Multiple networks are welcome, as long as each has a clear purpose and role

Stakeholders are generally aware that a range of networks exist within the education system, but there is considerable variation in stakeholder participation and understanding of the role and purpose of networks. The changes in network arrangements in recent years following the previous regional restructure has contributed to this feeling. There are varying opinions across the sector about what form (informal relationships or formalised and facilitated networks) and purpose networks should take in any new regional arrangements.

Our analysis of consultation responses shows that while there was significant feedback and discussion on the roles of networks, often the feedback did not offer specific detail on potential network structures, their focus and who should attend. Consultation participants spoke more generally about the need for flexible networks, who should manage them, whether they should be based on geographic areas or based on ‘like’ groups, and whether formal or informal networks should be encouraged.

“Clusters and networks of schools, through the systematic sharing of expertise and skills, provide a powerful means of school improvement and innovation in education.” (Nick Abbey, Great Schools Network) “Networks can play a valuable role in bringing the community together around schools – to support schools to undertake their work but also to help the community understand what schools do.” (MAV)

Principals Most principals have a desire for the regions to play a role in networks, but are wary of returning to a network structure that is fully department or region-led; a flexible, half-way point is preferable. Our analysis of consultation responses has found that most principals are keen on retaining a certain level of control over networks in which they are involved. Most principals do not want to return to a structure with mandated networks run by the regions.

However, most principals recognise that regions should play some role in helping to encourage and/or facilitate and, crucially, fund networks, with the stipulation that principals still have autonomy over membership. The connecting theme through these findings is one in which the region “supports” rather than “manages.” Most principals want to see a structure that will allow for place-based and locally focused networks.

“Principals should be encouraged to take control of their own networks and to forge networks which best meet the needs of their own students.” (VASSP)

The majority of secondary principals have called for schools to be left to create their own networks, arguing that “principals are very capable of forming their own networks.” Our analysis of secondary school principals’ responses to the consultation shows that there is a preference for schools to have a significant level of autonomy in forming their own networks.

“The inner city network of secondary schools is an excellent example of where principals established their own networks (across regional boundaries) where they saw an opportunity for their own schools to learn from each other.” (VASSP)

Senior Advisers Most Senior Advisers raised concerns during the consultation about how current networks are running. They have suggested the principal-controlled model is somewhat of a problem, but they acknowledge that the department-driven model did not work perfectly either. Most Senior Advisers suggested that something in the middle is desirable, where principals do not have all the control and where the department and the regions do play more of an active role. Senior Advisers did not offer more detail on exactly how this mixed network structure might work in practice, but instead, encouraged the department to consider this feedback when thinking about future networks.

External stakeholders Local government and community groups are more explicit about the need for the regions to play an active role in facilitating and/or running networks. Our analysis of their submissions has found that both agree that networks in their current form are too dependent on principals. Both stakeholder groups highlight that principals are too busy and have too many competing responsibilities and therefore struggle to “look outwards”. These time pressures affect their ability to create the network linkages that would be of value to their schools and external stakeholders. There is a role for regions to assist principals with this capacity issue and help facilitate linkages with local government and other external stakeholders.

There is also a desire for the department / regions to encourage and potentially help facilitate informal networks. One example could involve a central online system where people could make their own connections and networks. This system could categorise stakeholders by role, expertise, geographic area and policy interests, allowing stakeholders to connect around what is important to them. There was a lack of detail on the specifics of what informal networks could and should look like, but there is consensus that this is an area where the department should think “creatively” and try to “be innovative”.

8.2.There should be a balance or choice of geographic or ‘like’ networks

Some principals and Senior Advisers felt they would get more value from networks if they were formed of ‘like’ schools with similar focus, needs, challenges and/or size. These principals and Senior Advisers felt that schools should have the freedom to form their own networks with similar schools. In particular, this would create opportunities for various rural, small, primary, or secondary schools to form networks with schools outside their ‘geographic’ area that had similar characteristics or issues. This would allow for the sharing of information on similar scenarios they might have had to deal with.

“They probably need to hook in with a network of similar schools. A collective of a group of principals is a good opportunity to make sure we have some consistency in what we do. Growing that relationship supports principals in what they do because they can turn to each other. It makes better collegiate.” (Senior Adviser) “It has been a distinct advantage to work with schools in newly formed ‘consortiums’ (not necessarily geographic or pre-determined) where schools that are on the same improvement journey, at the same time can do this together. The systematic focus on education from onwards has attempted to strengthen the partnership between early childhood and schools.” (VPA)

Some academics also argued that school networks should not be bound by geography. Rather, they should be “determined by each school, depending on the school’s context and current priorities for student learning.”

“Schools should have choice of the kind of network and / or networks in which they participate.” (Melbourne Graduate School of Education)

Whilst a selection of consultation participants advocated the need for ‘like’ networks, just as many argued that geographic networks are considered a positive for many, as long as their focus is on the sharing of ideas and professional support. A number of staff, schools, and early childhood practitioners argued that there should be balance between ‘like’ and geographic networks.

“There has to be a balance between geographic and ‘like networks.” (SWVR Principal Network)

“There is a benefit in having networks made up of metro and rural regions.” (Expert Principals Advisory Group)

8.3.Networks could involve early childhood, VET, Catholic and independent schools

Throughout the consultation process there has been a broad consensus that networks should be redefined to include representatives across the 0-18 spectrum including Catholic and independent schools. Many consultation participants felt the department should take a more holistic approach to who should be involved in networks. Networks could be used to facilitate better partnerships and shared learning across the education system.

ISV said they are interested in being part of networks as long as they have a clear purpose, and outlined that there are areas where state and independent schools can learn from each other. However, there was some concern about how these networks would work in practice because, among other reasons, the competition for funding has “created prejudice about how we co-exist.” “I absolutely see a role for Catholic schools in networks of principals.” (CEOM)

VET There is a desire for the department to facilitate networks between early childhood, schools, and VET, to provide better communication and seamless linkages between these stages of education. However, ACFE disagreed with the VET component of this point, arguing in their submission that there is “no real benefit of VET being involved in schools-based networks.”

Early childhood There was a consensus in the early childhood sector that there could be benefits from early childhood being involved in networks.

“We want issues-based networks which are manageable and relevant.” (NEVR early childhood)

“The networks have fallen away. There used to be networks where you could build relationships with people doing the same thing as you. It was really strong but in the past three to five years these have fallen away. When they were working well they gave the opportunity to get mentoring and talk to people in similar situations. There were invaluable.” (NWVR early childhood)

8.4.Networks would benefit from administrative support

Parents Victoria argued in their submission that the department should fund the administrative function of networks. Local government and councils have outlined their support for networks and highlighted ways in which networks could be better supported. Our analysis of their recommendations has identified one commonality. There is a desire for the ‘Network Broker’ role to be returned in some capacity. This role was a principal support role and local government found it to be a valuable interface between local government and other service providers.

“We support the re-introduction of this role to get networks up and running and keep them consistent.” (MAV)

Academics also advocated that schools should be resourced to participate fully in networks, arguing that networks are a key communication channel for sharing best practice and key learnings across the sector and encouraging continuing improvement. “If the department is to provide systematic support for ongoing continuous improvement and scaling of success, strategic financial investment would include; support for effective inter-school collaboration in networks; resources for schools to measure their impact and plan accordingly; support for targeted additional intervention where needed.” (Melbourne Graduate School of Education)

It was reported that some networks employ an executive officer and, for those that can afford this support role, it has been successful.

“Some networks have executive officers – this is fantastic. The executive officer rings me up and follows up on what are we doing.” (Senior Adviser)

“Networks require funding to employ an executive officer to co-ordinate all their work.” (NWVR staff)

There are calls from some in the department to fund such a support role for all networks to allow networks to focus on school improvement and peer support rather than administrative duties.

9. The right model will balance consistency with local knowledge and support

The consultation paper outlines three possible potential models for a new departmental regional structure. These models were developed to stimulate discussion about the optimal department regional arrangements during the consultation. The three models are: Model A – retain four regions but provide additional support. Model B – expand the number of regions. Model C – retain four administrative regions but shift the department’s primary system interface to seventeen smaller local areas.

The key themes addressed in this section are: Whatever model is chosen, it should be appropriately resourced and funded, and should not add an additional layer of bureaucracy. How it is implemented, and a long-term commitment, is critical. Model A brings consistency and limited change. Model B brings increased local knowledge and support. Model C brings place-based solutions. There is generally more interest in Model A or C, and tentative support for the 17 area structure.

9.1.Whatever model is chosen, it should be appropriately resourced and funded, and should not add an additional layer of bureaucracy

Throughout the consultation it has been consistently communicated that whatever decision is taken regarding the structural model, the priority should be towards “funding for frontline services.” Whilst not suggested in the consultation paper, stakeholders have repeatedly emphasised that any structural changes should not come at the expense of schools and early childhood budgets.

“Whatever is put in place needs to be adequately resourced.” (NEVR Principal Reference Group)

“The most important thing is for the department to pick a model, commit to it, and for once, properly fund it.” (SWVR Principal Network)

“We aren’t that bothered by models. The consultation paper asked the wrong questions. The department should be thinking about educational outcomes and then working back from there.” (SEVR early childhood)

The vast majority of stakeholders across the education system are ambivalent about any restructure. This is a direct result of the number of restructures many in the sector have gone through. There is no clear delineation in views across stakeholder groups within or outside the education sector.

9.2.How it is implemented, and a long-term commitment, is critical

A consistent point raised in feedback regarding models has been the crucial importance of a well thought out implementation plan and the clear communication of it. Most stakeholders from across the sector (principals, early childhood, VET, and staff) are critical of the lack of a clear implementation plan for the previous restructure.

“Implementation for policy is key. We need to give more thought on how to implement any changes in practice. This is particularly important for any changes to the model – successive departments fail at this.” (SWVR staff)

Academics also highlighted the importance of implementation processes for any structural changes in their submissions, noting that successive governments and departments have been poor at implementation. The Grattan Institute raised the issue of sequencing in their submission, arguing that the department should first think about what type of support it should provide to schools and then develop a regional model.

“Designing the organisational structure should wait until DET has decided what type of support it wants to provide to schools, and how the activities should be split between central and regional structures.” (Grattan Institute submission)

Stakeholders from across the education sector are fatigued by constant changes and are looking for a model that is long term. Principals raised this as a particular concern.

“Every three or four years, just when we are getting used to one way of working, they go and change the whole system again.” (NEVR Principal Reference Group)

9.3.Model A brings consistency and limited change

Our analysis of consultation responses show that stakeholders across the education sector (staff, principals, early childhood) felt that a strength of Model A is that consistency will be easier to maintain across four regions. It would also allow all additional funding to go towards providing resources, rather than towards the costs incurred from restructuring the regions. Participants also highlighted that Model A would involve the least amount of change.

“This model could use the money for on the ground support rather than setting up new regions.” (Stakeholder forum participant)

“It’s basically the currently model, but properly funded? This is exactly what we need.” (NWVR Principal Network)

Many across the sector felt that Model A would not solve the issue of regions being too large and associated issues around insufficient travel time. Another key observation made by many across the sector is that it is unclear if this model would deliver the place-based support that has been missing from the current arrangements.

“This will not address the silos that were created following the last restructure.” (Stakeholder forum participant)

“This doesn’t provide the local-based support that schools have lost since the previous restructure.” (NWVR Principal Network) There is no delineation in opinions about Model A across stakeholder groups – there is a wide-range of views within each stakeholder group.

9.4.Model B brings increased local knowledge and support

Stakeholders felt that the strength of Model B is the increased number of regions, allowing for better local knowledge and a more manageable workload for regional staff.

Peak bodies such as the VPA highlighted that Model B could help ensure resources are located close to the area that they are supporting and enable support staff to have a better understanding of local issues.

“Reducing regions has been disastrous for schools, stretching resources too thinly and drastically reducing support.” (VPA)

The Grattan Institute argued in their submission that Model B could help streamline linkages with other departments and increase local-based support.

“Model B enables simpler, better and cheaper regional management structure. Model B could streamline and strengthen linkages with other departments. Model B offers the best opportunity for locally based departmental staff.” (Grattan Institute)

However, many responses from across the education sector argued that within current funding restraints, Model B would be a waste of money and likely result in funding being diverted from schools and frontline services. Many responses also highlighted that moving from four to eight regions could be “too great an upheaval” and there is a concern that it might result in money being diverted to bureaucrats.

“There is no desire to return to the ‘old model’ of multiple regions which see the level of bureaucracy increase while support remains generalised around a ‘one-size-fits-all approach’.” (VASSP)

“We don’t need more regions – we need to concentrate on local network level support.” (NEVR Principal Reference Group)

There is no delineation in opinions about Model B across stakeholder groups – there is a wide range of views within each stakeholder group. 9.5.Model C brings place-based solutions

Stakeholders felt that the key strengths of Model C were that it would allow for better local / place-based support and possibly alleviate the amount of travel required.

EPAG highlighted the possible increase in local-based assistance as something that is desperately needed and that Model C could go some way to providing this. Some members of staff highlighted that Model C could help leadership teams “do their jobs better.” A number of principals thought the sub-regions could help address the gaps in support for schools following the previous restructure.

“We like Model C because 17 sub regions are overseen by four distinct region leaders. We can work collectively and be on the same page. Collegiality may increase which would be welcome.” (NWVR Principal Network)

“Makes sense given the linkages between our work and DHHS. This model may make strong collaboration easier.” (Stakeholder forum participant)

Our analysis identified that there are mixed views throughout the education sector (with no clear consensus within any stakeholder groups) on whether the alignment with DHHS’ structure is the right model. In particular, a number of DET staff, schools, the early childhood sector and DHHS questioned whether this model structure would deliver.

“The following roles could be administered at the 17 sub-region level; facilities, wellbeing, curriculum, ICT, HR, welfare, PSD, network support, finance, and emergency management.” (SEVR Principal Network)

“The available expertise will be too fragmented with 17 regions.” (VPA)

“Why are these areas aligned with DHHS when their areas might change shortly? Implementing this change would be chaotic.” (Stakeholder forum participant)

“The 17 area model is an expensive model…sub-regions are a better option”. (DHHS)

However, some in the early childhood sector think Model C presents an opportunity for greater partnership building across government. It would be particularly helpful for the sector in developing better relationships with DHHS and would potentially recognise the needs of families and communities and the types of local support and networks required to meet local needs.

Stakeholders highlighted a number of weaknesses in Model C, including concern that 17 areas is still not enough, and, a loss of consistency across the regions.

“The 17 sub-areas won’t be enough. That would mean approximately 4 sub-areas in the South East region. The areas involved will still be massive and won’t deliver the local-based approach we need.” (SEVR early childhood)

“It’s unclear how Model C would allow for a clear line of sight from early childhood to schools to TAFE through pathways.” (TAFE CEOs)

There is no delineation in opinions about Model C across stakeholder groups – there is a wide range of views within each stakeholder group.

9.6.There is generally more interest in Model A or C, and tentative support for the 17 area structure

There is no clear majority view on what model the department should adopt. Furthermore, when we analysed responses by stakeholder group we found no strong view within stakeholder groups. Equally, there is no evidence of any correlation either by region or by metropolitan or rural areas.

Our analysis of consultation data does show, however, that there has generally been a preference for Models A and C. A smaller number of respondents advocated for Model B.

All models have split opinions across all stakeholder groups including schools, early childhood and VET.

However, a number of consistent themes have come out of the consultation process. Whatever model is chosen, there is a critical need for: appropriate funding to achieve educational outcomes (the education sector believes it is currently grossly underfunded) additional funding for frontline services additional support at the regional level a focus on place-based support a greater emphasis on tailoring services to local needs a dramatic increase in lines of communication from the department to the regions and back again greater visibility of department and regional offices and staff better access to, and better application of, data for identifying need and delivering targeted and innovative support and education for learners better use of technology to help address distance issues as well as deliver educational outcomes for learners.

Other government departments and agencies agreed that any regional structure should: seek cross-over with other departments’ regional structure where possible promote greater linkages and partnerships between DET and other departments increase flexibility within education to develop innovative programs with other departments and agencies where there are areas of commonality.

All respondents thought that DET had an opportunity to make significant progress in inter-departmental cooperation and partnership.

Any decision the department takes on how to restructure regional services should address these key considerations that have been raised throughout the consultation process. Appendix

Acronym definitions Summary of consultation numbers Indicative list of organisations involved in the Strengthening DET regional relationships and support consultation Strengthening DET regional relationships and support consultation: summary of early childhood themes Strengthening DET regional relationships and support consultation: summary of VET themes Acronym definitions

Acronym Definition

ACD Association For Children with a Disability

ACFE Adult, Community and Further Education Board

AEU Australian Education Union

ANMF Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation

APF Australian Principals Federation

Bastow The Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership

CEOM Catholic Education Office Melbourne

CPSU Community and Public Sector Union

DEDJTR Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

DET Victorian Department of Education and Training

DHHS Victorian Department of Health and Human Services

DOJR Victorian Department of Justice and Regulation

EAL English as an additional language

ECDAG Early Childhood Development Advisory Group

ECSEG Early Childhood and School Education Group

EPAG Expert Principals Advisory Group

HESG Higher Education and Skills Group

HR Human resources

ICT Information and communications technology

ISFG Infrastructure and Finance Services Group

ISV Independent Schools Victoria

KEC Koorie Education Coordinator

KESO Koorie Engagement Support Officer

KPI Key performance indicator

LGAs Local government areas

LLENs Local Learning and Employment Networks

MAV Municipal Association of Victoria

NDIS National Disability Insurance Scheme

NEVR North-Eastern Victoria Region

NWVR North-Western Victoria Region

OHS Occupational health and safety PASS Principals’ Association of Specialists Schools, Victoria Inc.

PD Professional development

PESG Professional Education Services Group

PPPs Public Private Partnerships

PSD Program for Students with Disabilities

RDV Regional Development Victoria

RSG Regional Services Group

SEVR South-Eastern Victoria Region

SGA School Governance Australia

SRG Strategy and Review Group

SRP Student Resource Package

SSRG School Stakeholder Reference Group

SSS Student Support Services

SSSO Student Support Services Officer

SWVR South-Western Victoria Region

TAFE Technical and Further Education

VAEAI Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc.

VASSP Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals

VCAA Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority

VCAL Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning

VCE Victorian Certificate of Education

VCOSS Victorian Council of Social Service

VET Vocational education and training

VICCSO Victorian Council of School Organisations

VicSRC Victorian Student Representative Council

VPA Victorian Principals Association

VRQA Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority Summary of consultation numbers

Number of consultation sessions

The consultation involved 71 consultation sessions. A breakdown of these sessions is as follows: Focus groups – 39 Workshops – 8 Stakeholder forum – 1 Interviews – 22 Meeting item – 1

Consultation sessions held in North-Western Victoria Region (NWVR) Eleven consultation sessions were held in NWVR: Focus groups – 7 Workshops – 2 Interviews – 2

Consultation sessions held in North-Eastern Victoria Region (NEVR) Eight consultation sessions were held in NEVR: Focus groups – 6 Workshop – 1 Interviews – 1

Consultation sessions held in South-Western Victoria Region (SWVR) Ten consultation sessions were held in SWVR: Focus groups – 7 Workshops – 1 Interviews – 2

Consultation sessions held in South-Eastern Victoria Region (SEVR) Eight consultation sessions were held in SEVR: Focus groups – 5 Workshops – 2 Interviews – 1 Consultation sessions held involving representatives from all four regions: Focus groups – 1 (Deputy Regional Directors) Workshops – 1 (SSS)

Stakeholders directly consulted

There were approximately 1,500 participants involved in consultation sessions. The following participation numbers are an approximate breakdown by stakeholder group: Principals – 344 School sector (excluding principals) – 26 SSSO – 120 Regional staff – 582 Central staff – 95 Early childhood sector – 127 VET sector – 66 Unions – 8 Other government stakeholders – 9 Other – 1 Stakeholder forum – 75 (mix of stakeholders from the above groups)

Number of written submissions received

Approximately 140 separate submissions were received.

Participants involved in the online forum

The online forum had 43 members (excluding the project team), with nine of these members engaging in online discussions. Indicative list of organisations involved in the Strengthening DET regional relationships and support consultation

The following is a list of the organisations and government departments that, through various methods, participated in the Strengthening DET regional relationships and support consultation. This list is indicative only, and does not identify individual participants or specific schools, principal networks, early childhood providers or local councils.

Adult, Community and Further Education Board Adult, Community and Further Education Regional Councils Association for Children with a Disability Australian Association of Social Workers Australian Education Union Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Victoria branch) Australian Principals Federation Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership Bestchance Child Family Care Catholic Education Office Melbourne Centre for Adult Education Centre for Multicultural Youth Community and Public Sector Union Country Education Project Deakin University Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Department of Education and Training Early Childhood and School Education Group Department of Education and Training Higher Education and Skills Group Department of Education and Training Infrastructure and Finance Services Group Department of Education and Training Professional Education Services Group Department of Education and Training Regional Services Group Department of Education and Training Strategy and Review Group Department of Health and Human Services Department of Justice and Regulation Early Childhood Australia Victoria Branch Early Childhood Development Advisory Group Early Childhood Intervention Australia Early childhood providers across Victoria Eastern Business Managers' Network Euroa Community Education Centre Expert Principals Advisory Group G21 Geelong Region Alliance Grattan Institute Independent Schools Victoria Inner Melbourne VET Cluster Kyabram Community & Learning Centre Inc. Kyneton Community & Learning Centre Inc. Lalor Living and Learning Centre Learn Local providers across Victoria Living and Learning at Ajani Inc. Local councils across Victoria Local Learning and Employment Networks across Victoria Maternal and Child Health Line Melbourne Graduate School of Education Municipal Association of Victoria Murdoch Children’s Research Institute North-Eastern Victoria Region Principal Reference Group Northern District Community Health Service North-Western Victoria Region Principal Reference Group Parentline Victoria Parents Victoria Inc. Principal Reference Group (Reform Board) Principals and principal networks across Victoria Principals' Association of Specialist Schools Professional Educational Services Group SaGE Network Inc. School Governance Australia School Stakeholder Reference Group South-Eastern Victoria Region Principal Reference Group Southern Mallee Youth Partnership South-Western Victoria Region Principal Reference Group SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre Inc. Student Support Services across Victoria Swinburne Institute for Social Research Technical and Further Education Chief Executive Officers across Victoria The Victorian Council of School Organisations Inc. Upper Murray Regional Neighbourhood House Network Upper Yarra Community House Inc. Victorian Student Representative Council Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc. Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals Victorian Council of School Organisations Victorian Council of Social Service Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority Victorian Deaf Education Institute Victorian Institute of Teaching Victorian Principals Association Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority

Vocational Education and Training providers across Victoria Strengthening DET regional relationships and support consultation: summary of early childhood themes

Theme Detail Sources

Need an increased focus on “Transition statements are couched in positive terms and do not reveal the actual Principal Networks – NWVR, NEVR transitions and the 0-18 approach. concerns.” Staff – RSG central “Need to set consistent dates for primary school enrolments.” Staff – NWVR “Need to streamline transition services, kindergarten to Prep.” ECDAG “Need an expert transition team to work with kindergartens, families and Early childhood – NEVR, NWVR, SEVR, schools...which is proactive not reactive…supporting with inclusion.” SWVR “Need a shift of policy regarding release of teachers for transition planning.” Local government representatives “Regions could play a bigger role in transitions. [Early childhood] having a greater influence at principal networks would be a good way to introduce it to principals. Principals have a vested interest in this and can work on early intervention around things such as language.” “[Regional staff] don’t have the knowledge in the rural communities around complex social issues, which leads to lower literacy and numeracy when they transition to school.” “Kindergartens that are on the same site as a school have a better relationship…driven by what happens at a local level. Also a better transition for children as they get to use facilities such as the library and art room during kindergarten.” “Professionals have to come up with their own opportunities to learn how to prepare children for the next level of education.” “One of the biggest problems preventing an effective service delivery stem for families is the integration process between early childhood and schools. Relationships between local government and schools needs to be strengthened to improve this.” “Improving the level of understanding of the transition statement among teaching staff is considered critical to accurate and timely identification of children with complex needs.” “It is pleasing to see DET has identified the need to support key transition points and partnerships to strengthen educational opportunities.” “There is an opportunity [for the regions] to support transitions.” “There is a gap between early childhood and schools [in terms of transition], an expert team is required to work with kindergartens, families and schools.” “There needs to be an increased focus on transitions. There needs to be a 0-18 approach.” “Need better for transition periods.” “At a regional level need a stronger focus on early childhood and transition to school.” “Transitions can be very ‘patchy.’ Some schools do a great job in wrap around support for children with disabilities and other schools refer families elsewhere.” “We should be focusing on transitions and how to put effective transitions in place – particularly between early childhood and schools.” “Areas for change are that we need more work and focus around transitions and ongoing support once transitioned.” “Formal support at transitions from kindergarten through to school is needed.” “Lost opportunities for early childhood and schools networking, needs to be re- established.” “Need to support holistic approach to children – birth to adulthood.” “It is imperative that the transition from home to early year’s groups such as playgroups and kindergartens is prioritised by DET.” “There is a need for greater integration, particularly so that regions are able to play more of a facilitation role around transitions.” “Regions have an important role in supporting transitions and acting as a broker between early childhood and schools, making services aware of what is available and making both early childhood settings and schools feel part of the system.”

Partnerships are considered “Lack of partnership / collaborative approach between the department and third party Early childhood – NEVR, NWVR, SEVR, important, and there is an opportunity providers.” SWVR for the regions to facilitate better “The relationship between schools, early childhood providers, VET and non- Staff – NWVR, SWVR relationships across the education government schools is missing in regions.” Staff – ECSEG, RSG central sector, particularly between early “Imagine if kindergartens were brought under the schools umbrella. This would help childhood and schools. Relationships Principal Networks – SWVR bridge the divide and encourage people to work across both.” and partnerships with other Murdoch Children’s Research Institute organisations such as local councils “The department should take more a role in networks, ensuring less reliance on local are also crucial. governments to do this...” DOJR “Partnership building and brokerage is a priority [for early childhood].” ECDAG “By combining the local expertise of a range of stakeholders who are aware of what is happening in the local community, place-based partnerships provide the opportunity for an enhanced response to emerging issues within the community and, as such, preventing problems before they become entrenched.” “Early childhood and schools – greater alignment between sectors is needed.” “Early childhood and local government needs to have better connections.” “Facilitate joint planning, local need, multiple agencies, networks in local government areas, workforce development. You need connectedness and the child to be at the centre.” “Because the early childhood system is more diverse, lots of different providers etc., greater need for local planning and collaboration. Especially relevant for vulnerable children.” “Look at teams e.g. partnership building working across all sectors not just schools separate to early childhood. How can we reduce the silo mentality and enhance partnerships across the sector?” “We need stronger partnerships with families, schools and intervention services.” “Partnership building and brokerage across sectors and linkages across all sectors of early childhood services [is needed].” “[Early childhood is] working in silos.”

There is a need for greater “Early intervention, early childhood for future outcomes [needs to be prioritised].” Staff – NEVR, NWVR recognition of the importance of early “Proactive / early intervention focus of Professional Practice Unit – building capacity Early childhood – NWVR, SEVR, NEVR intervention, particularly for vulnerable and not putting on band aids.” VPA families. Increased resources and “Earlier intervention and prevention – providing education and support to the education support are needed for engaging with VCOSS professionals / teachers e.g. a child with autism leaves an early intervention service these families. CPSU where groups are smaller, greater number of staff to the school environment where there are greater expectations to conform, less staff, larger number of students …the Victorian Primary Care Partnerships child is set up to fail.” Principal Networks – NEVR “Primary schools in early intervention, need to know when and how to focus resources.” DOJR “Need to enhance collaboration between stakeholders particularly at the early State LLEN intervention and prevention stage – the department could play a key role in introducing a more integrated model.” “Primary years – early intervention is critical.” “First three years of a child’s life are so important and more focus needs to be on the first three years.” “The waitlist for early intervention is too long.” “Early intervention is crucial to minimising harm and ensuring student and community wellbeing.” “Early intervention needs to drastically improve. Children coming in to Prep have more issues than ever before.” “Place-based support ([regional staff] need to attend and hear us), Koorie, disadvantaged youth, early intervention.” “Focus on disadvantage is very important – need to increase focus in early years to ‘break the cycle’.” “How do you do better joined up work between services and the region to achieve positive outcomes for vulnerable children?”

Greater clarity of roles is needed “Improved understanding of differences between metro / rural services.” Staff – NWVR between the central and regional “There is a lack of a real partnership between central and the regional office.” Staff – ECSEG offices. “Policy and consistent implementation (unclear e.g. co-location, clarity of roles).” Early childhood - NWVR, SWVR, NEVR “Needs to be clarity around who provides what and who to contact.” ECDAG “Need clarity of central region roles – it is currently very confusing and it is unclear who to contact.” “Clarity of central / regional roles.” “Need role clarity.” “Metro has difficulty in understanding how community / rural partnerships work.”

The sector feels like it is an after- “No representation of early childhood in the areas of expertise [listed in the consultation Staff – NWVR thought in this consultation and more paper].” Early childhood – SWVR, NEVR generally. “It seems that early childhood and VET are a secondary focus.” ECDAG “[The consultation paper] focuses on schools and school education. It acknowledges Melbourne Graduate School of Education but does not address the importance of the department's interactions with early childhood services, TAFE and other VET providers.” “The design principles provide a suitable approach although there was little focus on the early childhood area of the department.” “Strong bias towards schools – other areas need to see their work reflected and valued.” Strengthening DET regional relationships and support consultation: summary of VET themes

Theme Detail Sources

Partnerships between the VET sector “The relationship between schools, early childhood providers, VET and non- Staff – RSG central and the wider education sector are government schools is missing in regions.” Staff – NWVR, SWVR seen as important and should be “Need to consider ways of strengthening these relationships (VET and Learn Locals).” ACFE Board strengthened. “Learn Local could be better integrated.” Early childhood – NEVR “Need better connection between schools and VET, to overcome lack of aspirations of Principal Networks – SEVR students in some communities.” “Engagement between VET and schools would be likely through pathways.” “There are opportunities to link VET, Learn Locals and early childhood services to support seamless pathways for students through the entire education spectrum, including pre and post school ages, but barriers to this are the competitive funding arrangements…and thin markets in some areas. Positive outcomes are not always possible, rivalry is increased and partnerships are not fostered.” “For vocational services – there is currently no integration – but there is plenty of opportunity for this.”

There is a lack of resources for the “There is a gaping hole when it comes to support for VET and Learn Local providers.” Staff – SEVR, NEVR VET sector, affecting provision. “A lot also needs to be done regarding the provision of VET.” Principals Networks – NEVR, NWVR “Provision is a major issue for VET and TAFE - insufficient training opportunity. No LLENS – SWVR strategic overview of this situation.” Principal Reference Groups – SWVR, “VET providers shouldn't be leeched out of the schools to support shortfalls.” NEVR “Learn Locals need more support – many have low capacity, lack of skills and poor G21 Geelong Region Alliance governance. They need to build the roles, capacity, skills and expertise to ensure that people providing support have the necessary skill set.” “Is there a strategy to support / cover VET provision?” “Rapid changes in regional economies are placing pressure on TAFE to adapt its training provision.” “VET requires a funding model to support the courses required – all things to all people (country schools).” “HESG regional teams need to be consolidated and strengthened so that adequate support for all aspects of vocational training occurring in regions is addressed.”

VET is a secondary focus in this “It seems that early childhood and VET are a secondary focus.” Staff – ECSEG consultation, with the majority of focus “This response focuses on schools and school education. It acknowledges but does not Melbourne Graduate School of Education placed on schools. address the importance of the Department's interactions with early childhood services, TAFEs and other VET providers.”

There is a lack of specialist “VET is a mess in schools. It’s difficult for schools to manage VET because there are so Senior Advisers – NEVR knowledge regarding VET within the many obstacles in the way and we don’t support principals to navigate that complex Staff – RSG central regions, and schools need more system. There should be more systemic support. Schools can get into a lot of trouble. Principal Networks – SEVR support around VET provision. There are big gaps. Funding is a huge issue.” Staff – NWVR “Industry expertise [in the regions for] VET sector [would be useful].” “Secondary schools need someone with high level expertise on VET Registered Training Organisations’ compliance etc.” “Expertise needed at regional level to support both primary and secondary around provision. Particularly with a legal oversight.” “Enable regional staff to work with these services / providers.” “There is an opportunity to improve information on relative VET providers so staff can make informed choices.”

Load more

  81

Copy Link