Closing Schools – What are the Savings?
The ACT Council of P&C Associations today called on the Government to release a thorough analysis of the estimated costs and benefits of school closures before it seeks to close any schools.
The Chief Minister told ABC radio recently that “the case for school closures is just absolute”. “We call on him to make the case public”, said Council President, Ms Jane Gorrie. The community needs to have the complete picture to be able to judge the merits, or otherwise, of school closures.
The Council is concerned that the Government is over-stating and simplifying the case.
The Government has claimed there are 17,800 empty desks yet the document ‘Projected Enrolments 2006 to 2010′ from July 2005, on the Department of Education and Trainings website at http://www.det.act.gov.au/publicat/pdf/projected_enrolments_06-10.pdf (accessed 29/4/06) shows a total unused capacity of 14,170 places (rural schools excluded) or 14,415 (rural schools included). Those figures used the February 2005 census count. Even allowing for the February 2006 government school enrolment census figures, which are better than the department projected, the Government seems to be artificially inflating spare school capacity by over 3000 places.
In reality much of this capacity is not available for school students. It is being used by others who would have to be found alternative accommodation if the school buildings were no longer available. The other users include: professional support staff from the Department of Education, other child related services and community organisations.
The Government is over-estimating the gross savings. The Minister’s benchmark for comparison is a primary school operating at full capacity rather than at average capacity. A better benchmark would be the current average capacity as it is neither feasible nor sensible to keep closing schools until the only remaining schools are those at full capacity.
The Council is concerned that the Government may be over-looking other costs and benefits.
Any costing should consider the costs and benefits to all areas of Government.
Closure of a school of itself does not remove all costs associated with the site.
The cost analysis should also account for the future use of the site and those costs and benefits to Government. The cost analysis should include the additional government expenditure on bus services and maintenance as a result of increased bus patronage by students travelling to other schools. ACTION average cost recovery is only about 25 – 30 per cent and is even lower for school student travel. As a result, government payments to ACTION will increase with school closures. The cost of additional bus services to meet the increased demand would reduce the remaining gross savings from closing schools.
Any costing should also consider the costs and benefits to the community. Increased private transport costs are cost shifting and should not be ignored. The impact on local businesses should be considered. Local schools also provide a pivotal role in the social network of an area as seen in the aftermath of the bush fires. The social impact of losing local schools must also be included in the analysis.
An analysis of the cost benefit of closing a school must include more than a simple financial analysis of the Education Department’s expenditure and revenue. Under the Education Act the Minister must assess the educational, social and financial impacts of possible school closures or amalgamations on the school community involved. We ask the Minister to state now how these impacts will be compiled, analysed and presented to the community.
Contact:
Ms. Jane Gorrie 6267 8708 (w)
6241 4543 (h)
0413 943 247 (mb)
ACT Council of Parents & Citizens Associations
Majura Primary School, Rm 51, Knox Street, Watson 2611 ACT
Ph: 6241 5759 Fax: 6241 8839 Email: parents@canberra.net.au
June 10th, 2006 at 9:30 am
From “Towards 2020 Renewing Oou Schools, Tuggeranong” pamphlet.
“Many parents also now exercise choice about their children’s schooling. The neighbourhood school is no longer the most convenient or appropriate choice. In some Tuggeranong regions fewer than 50% of students from the local area attend their local school.”
How can the government state this in one breathe, and in the next close down the alternatives to neighbourhood schools and force families in Tuggeranong to use the neighbourhood school they rejected when they exercised choice about their children’s schooling ???
Of course we all get reduced to numbers when a budget comes out. But even if you want to play the numbers game, they still add up in our favour. The information published re Tharwa School:
“Tharwa PS - 2006 enrolment - 25, 2010 projected enrolment - 25, capacity -50, capacity utilised - 50%, students coming from out of area - 64%, students who live in the area attending school 53%”
1. If you look at the projected enrolments for 2010 we are one of the only schools for whom the projected enrolment is not projected to drop. This suggests our school is more viable and sustainable than others, which are all projected to have a significant decline in enrolments.
2. Capacity and capacity utilised are deceptive little figures. I have heard suggestions now that the capacity is NOT an incorrect figure and that each of our 2 classrooms has a capacity of 25. This figure is unrealistic to anyone who walks into the classrooms. Does the government seriously think it is possible to put 25 students in either of those classrooms that currently also must serve as the library, hall, teachers office, equipment supplies, computer rooms etc etc? If the capacity figure was realistic to begin with, the capacity utilised would also be realistic.
3. Students coming from out of the area can only be a good thing - they are making the school service for the students in the area a viable option. Also of those coming from out of the area, I know that despite them being out of the area it is still their NEAREST primary school.
4. Percentage of students in the area using the school is also a deceptive little figure and looks bad when quoted as a percentage. But work it out folks. If 64% of our numbers are from out of the area then 36% of our 25 students are from within the area. This equates to 9 students. These 9 students represent the 47% of students in the area attending their local school. We can establish then that there are 19 students in the area and 10 of them are going to other schools. We are talking about very small numbers of actual people here! WHERE are the 10 other students going? Without knowing who they all are, I know over 30% are NOT enrolled in other government schools.
Our school is VIABLE, our school is CHOSEN by families and our school must STAY OPEN.