Conclusion
There are two key shortcomings that fundamentally limit the effectiveness of the Department's plans and strategies to respond to the demand for secondary teachers in STEM-related disciplines. First, the Department is not accurately tracking the supply and demand for secondary teachers by discipline due to incomplete data. Second, not all scholarship and sponsorship places are allocated and many scholars withdraw from the programs before completion. The Department has recognised and started to address these problems with a new workforce model, revised incentives and scholarship programs. 

The Department’s current workforce planning model does not provide the information needed to target workforce plans and strategies to areas of need. This is because it does not predict supply and demand for teachers by discipline and location. An internal review in 2017 acknowledged the limitations of this model. In response the Department developed a new model, which it is currently enhancing, to predict supply and demand for teachers by discipline and location. For this to be successful, the Department needs to monitor the level of out-of-field teaching and improve data on the willingness of teachers to work in particular locations. 

The Department does not allocate all available scholarship and sponsorship places and around 30 per cent of recipients do not complete the term of their agreement. An internal review in 2017 highlighted that some programs were not targeting workforce need and that there were no key performance indicators to determine the overall effectiveness of these programs. However, scholarship programs and incentives are promoted well through social media and face-to-face events at Universities. Further, the Department has used findings from internal reviews of incentives and scholarships in 2016 and 2017 to inform recent changes to programs. 

The Department has little oversight of access to practicum placements for pre-service teachers in areas of need. Professional experience agreements were established with each University in 2015 to improve the placement process for disciplines of need. Initial teacher education students must complete several ‘practicum placements’ before they can be qualified to teach in a school. Several universities we consulted reported difficulties finding practicum placements for pre-service teachers specialising in STEM-related disciplines. The Department is now revising the agreements to improve the quality of data it collects on the number, location and subject area of practicum placements. 

The Department is not accurately tracking the supply and demand for secondary teachers by discipline due to incomplete data. 

The Department’s current workforce planning model does not accurately predict supply and demand for teachers by discipline and location. An internal review in 2017 acknowledged the limitations of this model. In response the Department developed a new model which it is currently enhancing to address the findings of the review. For this model to be successful, the Department needs to monitor the level of out-of-field teaching and improve data on the willingness of teachers to work in particular locations. Further work also needs to be undertaken to refine the assumptions that underpin the Department’s workforce planning models as it starts to predict the need for teachers by discipline.

The Department has not publicly reported on the supply and demand for teachers by discipline since 2015. While it does report annually on its current workforce profile, this information is not detailed enough to inform future strategies or programs. More detailed public reporting may help the Department to influence the future supply of teachers by communicating its projected areas of need. Planned improvements to the Department's workforce planning model, as relayed to us, will add to the data available on areas of need. Once available, this should be reported publicly. 

Recommendations
By December 2019, the Department of Education should:

1. Improve its workforce planning model to better understand and communicate supply and demand for teachers by: 
   • determining the extent, and analysing the impact, of out-of-field teaching by permanent and temporary teachers in each school
   • sourcing additional data to more accurately reflect teacher location preferences
   • projecting supply and demand by subject level and geographic area
   • regularly reporting on the supply and demand for secondary teachers in each discipline to communicate future areas of need to future teacher education students.

The Department's current scholarship and sponsorship programs are not allocating all available places and many scholars withdraw from the programs before completion. An internal review in 2017 raised several issues with the effectiveness of programs and the Department has started to revise its scholarship, sponsorship and incentive programs. 

An internal review in 2017 highlighted that scholarship and sponsorship programs were not targeting workforce need, and that there were no key performance indicators to determine the overall effectiveness of these strategies. In addition, the review found that only 79 per cent of available scholarship placements are allocated each year, and 31 per cent of scholarship recipients withdraw prior to completing their required service period. The Department recently announced changes to its scholarship programs from 2019 onwards.

The Department has incentives to encourage teachers to work in rural and remote areas, including teachers in STEM-related disciplines. Incentives include access to priority transfers, rental subsidies and other allowances. Research conducted in 2016 examined the influence of incentives in encouraging teachers to work in rural and remote areas. The Department used findings of this research when updating its set of rural and remote incentives in 2017.

The Department promotes its scholarship and sponsorship programs through the teach.NSW website. It uses social media to direct applicants to this website. It also promotes its programs through careers fairs, University open days, and professional events. Past applicants have reported that the website clearly communicates eligibility criteria and the terms of agreement for all scholarship programs. 

The Department could strengthen its relationship with universities to attract teachers to areas of need by collecting and analysing data on practicum placements, facilitating placements for scholarship recipients, and communicating predicted teacher needs by discipline. 

Recommendations
By December 2019, the Department of Education should:

2. Implement changes to address the findings of the 'Teacher Scholarship Realignment' report, including by:

• testing a range of program designs with target candidates to determine the best options to attract more suitable applicants
• establishing key performance indicators, and setting targets, to better monitor the effectiveness of the programs
• reducing the number of scholars appointed to over-establishment positions
• increasing the proportion of scholars appointed to priority locations 
• further analysing scholarship recipients career paths to inform future improvements to the scholarship programs.

3. Review its role in the practicum placement process of pre-service teachers by:

• analysing how many students each school accommodates per year, to ensure there are appropriate placements available for students in high needs disciplines
• working with universities to facilitate practicum placements for scholarship recipients
• establishing mechanisms for ongoing monitoring of its partnerships with universities to ensure they are meeting their aims.

First, Property NSW has not comprehensively reviewed many agency property portfolios to help agencies identify assets, including commercial office properties, that could be better utilised or recycled. Second, the Government Property Register is not being actively maintained and contains incomplete and inaccurate information, limiting Property NSW’s ability to use it to support strategic decisions about the use of government property assets. Third, Property NSW's decisions are not well documented and its processes to reach decisions are not transparent to stakeholders. That said, property utilisation has improved by about 14 per cent since 2012, and Property NSW is actively moving properties out of the Sydney CBD in line with the ‘Decade of Decentralisation’ policy.

Property NSW’s role is to provide a strategic approach to property asset management. Under the 2012 Premier’s Memorandum, this includes a requirement that Property NSW undertake regular reviews of agency property portfolios to identify efficiencies to improve service delivery. Property NSW completed one comprehensive review of an agency, limited reviews of four other agencies, and some reviews of government property in regional towns, prior to 2017.

In December 2017, Property NSW started working across the NSW Government to help agencies identify real property assets, including commercial office properties, that are under-utilised or surplus and that could be recycled, repurposed, or vested to Property NSW.

Following the Memorandum, agencies were directed to vest their commercial office properties to Property NSW. However, without more comprehensive reviews, Property NSW does not know how many commercial properties are yet to be vested. Agencies can approach Property NSW for assistance in managing their property portfolios, and Property NSW arranges the recycling of under utilised and surplus properties that are brought to its attention. Property NSW is improving utilisation of government office space, according to agency self-reported information which Property NSW uses to calculate utilisation rates. 

The Property Asset Utilisation Taskforce report (2012) recommended that the NSW Government needed a ‘single source of truth’ to inform asset retention and disposal decisions, leasing decisions and ongoing strategic property decisions. It concluded that the Government Property Register (GPR) could perform this function ‘if populated appropriately’. However, the GPR is not comprehensively performing this function because it is still incomplete and out of date. Property NSW manages the GPR and NSW Government agencies are required to supply ‘accurate, relevant and useful information’ to populate it. Agencies are not always doing so in a timely manner, limiting its usefulness to support strategic decision making. Property NSW supplements the GPR with information from multiple other sources to assist its decisions, however, there is still no single, complete and accurate picture of the NSW Government property portfolio. 

The work Property NSW does to identify, shortlist and propose new lease and agency relocation options is not well documented. Property NSW records the outcome of the process without detailing how and why decisions were made. There is limited transparency in this process for stakeholders. Record keeping is also inconsistent and many of Property NSW’s divisions do not have procedures or guidelines.

In December 2017, the NSW Government announced the Property Infrastructure Policy to create a more collaborative approach between Property NSW and NSW Government agencies to review and identify efficiencies in their property portfolios. Before this, Property NSW did not have a plan to assist agencies to identify under-utilised properties for recycling or repurposing. It still does not know how many under-utilised properties exist and will not know until it has completed all of the portfolio reviews it is currently carrying out under the Property Infrastructure Policy.

Between 2013 and 2017, Property NSW had only completed one comprehensive review of an agency, limited reviews of four other agencies, and some regional towns. Outside this process Property NSW chose to rely on other agencies to identify surplus property for recycling, repurposing or vesting ownership to Property NSW.

Property NSW has a role to provide a strategic approach to property asset management and is required to undertake regular reviews of agency property portfolios under the Premier's Memorandum. Property NSW only recently started working to assist agencies to identify under-utilised and surplus properties, or properties to be vested. These reviews should improve the identification of surplus and under-utilised real property assets and assist whole-of-government decisions on the recycling, repurposing of under-utilised assets and vesting of owned office accommodation to Property NSW.

Recommendations
By December 2019, Property NSW should:

1. combine the results of property portfolio reviews to produce a whole-of-government picture of the NSW Government property portfolio 
2. devise a strategy and plan to recycle or repurpose under-utilised properties using a whole-of-government picture of the NSW Government property portfolio
3. develop and report on indicators for progress in reducing the number and value of under-utilised properties at the whole-of-government level, referencing progress against an accurate baseline stocktake.

Property NSW needs to be more proactive in its management of the GPR and in encouraging agencies to provide the information needed to improve this register. In 2012, the Property Asset Utilisation Taskforce report recommended there be a single source of truth on property assets owned by the NSW Government. The GPR is intended to fulfil this role but it is out of date and incomplete.

Without a complete and accurate central register of property, Property NSW cannot provide the NSW Government with a comprehensive picture of its property portfolio, or make whole-of-government decisions about the property portfolio. Property NSW currently supplements the GPR with information from other systems in order to make decisions about leasing, relocations, and property recycling and repurposing. Agencies are required to provide ‘accurate, relevant and useful information’ but are not consistently doing so.

Property NSW documents the outcome of decisions about relocations, lease renewals, and utilisation but is unable to provide evidence of how these decisions are reached. Property NSW is also unable to provide evidence of documented guidance for its staff on how decisions should be made. Whilst some level of subjectivity will play a part in such decisions, the lack of documentation and guidance raises issues of consistency, accountability and transparency in decision-making. Property NSW states that it makes decisions based on whole-of-government outcomes rather than equitable and consistent outcomes for client agencies, which is inconsistent with the criteria it reports that it uses when making decisions about leases and relocations.

Recommendations
By December 2019, Property NSW should:
5. document and communicate to stakeholders how its assessment criteria inform key decisions including agency relocations, lease renewals and rectifying under-utilisation
6. include customer satisfaction measures in its annual reports and reviews, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Premier's Memorandum M2012-20
7. improve record-keeping and compliance with the State Records Act 1998 and the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation Records Management Policy.

Conclusion

The Department of Education effectively and efficiently allocates grants to non‑government schools. Clarifying the objectives of grants, monitoring progress towards these objectives, and improving oversight, would strengthen accountability for the use of public funds by non‑government schools.

We tested a sample of grants provided to non‑government schools under all major schemes, and found that the Department of Education consistently allocates and distributes grants in line with its methodology. The Department has clear processes and procedures to efficiently collect data from schools, calculate the level of funding each school or System should receive, obtain appropriate approvals, and make payments.

We identified three areas where the Department could strengthen its management of grants to provide greater accountability for the use of public funds. First, the Department’s objectives for providing grants to non‑government schools are covered by legislation, intergovernmental agreements and grant guidelines. The Department could consolidate these objectives to allow for more consistent monitoring. Second, the Department relies on schools or System Authorities to engage a registered auditor to certify the accuracy of information on their enrolments and usage of grants. Greater scrutiny of the registration and independence of the auditors would increase confidence in the accuracy of this information. Third, the Department does not monitor how System Authorities reallocate grant funding to their member schools. Further oversight in this area would increase accountability for the use of public funds.

The Department effectively and efficiently allocates grants to non‑government schools. Strengthening its processes would provide greater assurance that the information it collects is accurate.

The Department provides clear guidelines to assist schools to provide the necessary census information to calculate per capita grants. Schools must get an independent external auditor, registered with ASIC, to certify their enrolment figures. The Department checks a sample of the auditors to ensure that they are registered with ASIC. Some other jurisdictions perform additional procedures to increase confidence in the accuracy of the census (for example, independently checking a sample of schools’ census data).

The Department accurately calculates and distributes per capita grants in accordance with its methodology. The previous methodology, used prior to 2018, was not updated frequently enough to reflect changes in schools' circumstances. Over 2014 to 2017, the Department provided additional grants to non‑government schools under the National Education Reform Agreement (NERA), to bring funding more closely in line with the Australian Department of Education and Training's Schooling Resource Standard (SRS). From 2018, the Department has changed the way it calculates per capita grants to more closely align with the Australian Department of Education and Training's approach.

The Department determines eligibility for grants by checking a school's registration status with NESA. However, NESA's approach to monitoring compliance with the registration requirements prioritises student learning and wellbeing requirements over the requirement for policies and procedures for proper governance. Given their importance to the appropriate use of government funding, NESA could increase its monitoring of policies and procedures for proper governance through its program of random inspections. Further, the Department and NESA should enter into a formal agreement to share information to more accurately determine the level of risk of non‑compliance at each school. This may help both agencies more effectively target their monitoring to higher‑risk schools.

By December 2018, the NSW Department of Education should:

2. Strengthen its processes to provide greater assurance that the enrolment and expenditure information it collects from non‑government schools is accurate. This should build on the work the Australian Government already does in this area.
3. Establish formal information‑sharing arrangements with the NSW Education Standards Authority to more effectively monitor schools' eligibility to receive funding.
    

By December 2018, the NSW Education Standards Authority should:

5. Extend its inspection practices to increase coverage of the registration requirement for policies and procedures for the proper governance of schools.
6. Establish formal information‑sharing arrangements with the NSW Department of Education to more effectively monitor schools' continued compliance with the registration requirements.

The Department’s current approach to managing grants to non‑government schools could be improved to provide greater confidence that funds are being spent in line with the objectives of the grant schemes.

The NSW Government provides funding to non‑government schools to improve student learning outcomes, and to support schooling choices by parents, but does not monitor whether these grants are achieving this. In addition, each grant program has specific objectives. The main objectives for the per capita grant program is to increase the rate of students completing Year 12 (or equivalent), and to improve education outcomes for students. While non‑government schools publicly report on some educational measures via the MySchool website, these measures do not address all the objectives. Strengthened monitoring and reporting of progress towards objectives, at a school level, would increase accountability for public funding. This may require the Department to formalise its access to student level information.

The Department has listed five broad categories of acceptable use for per capita grants, however, provides no further guidance on what expenditure would fit into these categories. Clarifying the appropriate use of grants would increase confidence that funding is being used as intended. Schools must engage an independent auditor, registered with ASIC, to certify that the funding has been spent. The Department could strengthen this approach by improving its processes to check the registration of the auditor, and to verify their independence.

The Department has limited oversight of funding provided to System Authorities (Systems). The Department provides grants to Systems for all their member schools. The Systems can distribute the grants to their schools according to their own methodology. Systems are not required to report to the Department how much of their grant was retained for administrative or centralised expenses. Increased oversight over how the Systems distribute this grant could provide increased transparency for the use of public funds by systems.

By December 2018, the NSW Department of Education should:

1. Establish and communicate funding conditions that require funded schools to:
   • adhere to conditions of funding, such as the acceptable use of grants, and accounting requirements to demonstrate compliance
   • report their progress towards the objectives of the scheme or wider Government initiatives
   • allow the Department to conduct investigations to verify enrolment and expenditure of funds
   • provide the Department with access to existing student level data to inform policy development and analysis.

4. Increase its oversight of System Authorities by requiring them to:
   • re‑allocate funds across their system on a needs basis, and report to the Department on this
   • provide a yearly submission with enough detail to demonstrate that each System school has spent their State funding in line with the Department's requirements.

All four agencies examined in the audit are taking steps to strengthen their risk culture. In these agencies, senior management communicates the importance of managing risk to their staff. They have risk management policies and funded central functions to oversee risk management. We also found many examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities.

That said, three of the four case study agencies could do more to understand their existing risk culture. As good practice, agencies should monitor their employees’ attitude to risk. Without a clear understanding of how employees identify and engage with risk, it is difficult to tell whether the 'tone' set by the executive and management is aligned with employee behaviours.

Our survey of risk culture found that three agencies could strengthen a culture of open communication, so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. To support innovation, senior management could also do better at communicating to their staff the levels of risk they are willing to accept.

Some agencies are performing better than others in building their risk capabilities. Three case study agencies have reviewed the risk-related skills and knowledge of their workforce, but only one agency has addressed the gaps the review identified. In three agencies, staff also need more practical guidance on how to manage risks that are relevant to their day-to-day responsibilities.

NSW Treasury provides agencies with direction and guidance on risk management through policy and guidelines. Its principles-based approach to risk management is consistent with better practice. Nevertheless, there is scope for NSW Treasury to develop additional practical guidance and tools to support a better risk culture in the NSW public sector. NSW Treasury should encourage agency heads to form a view on the current risk culture in their agencies, identify desirable changes to that risk culture, and take steps to address those changes. 

In assessing an agency’s risk culture, we focused on four key areas:

Executive sponsorship (tone at the top)

In the four agencies we reviewed, senior management is communicating the importance of managing risk. They have endorsed risk management frameworks and funded central functions tasked with overseeing risk management within their agencies.

That said, we found that three case study agencies do not measure their existing risk culture. Without clear measures of how employees identify and engage with risk, it is difficult for agencies to tell whether employee's behaviours are aligned with the 'tone' set by the executive and management.

For example, in some agencies we examined we found a disconnect between risk tolerances espoused by senior management and how these concepts were understood by staff.

Employee perceptions of risk management

Our survey of staff indicated that while senior leaders have communicated the importance of managing risk, more could be done to strengthen a culture of open communication so that all employees feel comfortable speaking openly about risks. We found that senior management could better communicate to their staff the levels of risk they should be willing to accept.

Integration of risk management into daily activities and links to decision-making

We found examples of risk management being integrated into daily activities. On the other hand, we also identified areas where risk management deviated from good practice. For example, we found that corporate risk registers are not consistently used as a tool to support decision-making.

Support and guidance to help staff manage risks

Most case study agencies are monitoring risk-related skills and knowledge of their workforce, but only one agency has addressed the gaps it identified. While agencies are providing risk management training, surveyed staff in three case study agencies reported that risk management training is not adequate.

NSW Treasury provides agencies with direction and guidance on risk management through policy and guidelines. In line with better practice, NSW Treasury's principles-based policy acknowledges that individual agencies are in a better position to understand their own risks and design risk management frameworks that address those risks. Nevertheless, there is scope for NSW Treasury to refine its guidance material to support a better risk culture in the NSW public sector.

Recommendation

By May 2019, NSW Treasury should:

• Review the scope of its risk management guidance, and identify additional guidance, training or activities to improve risk culture across the NSW public sector. This should focus on encouraging agency heads to form a view on the current risk culture in their agencies, identify desirable changes to that risk culture, and take steps to address those changes.

There is no whole‑of‑government capability to detect and respond effectively to cyber security incidents. There is limited sharing of information on incidents amongst agencies, and some of the agencies we reviewed have poor detection and response practices and procedures. There is a risk that incidents will go undetected longer than they should, and opportunities to contain and restrict the damage may be lost.

Given current weaknesses, the NSW public sector’s ability to detect and respond to incidents needs to improve significantly and quickly. DFSI has started to address this by appointing a Government Chief Information Security Officer (GCISO) to improve cyber security capability across the public sector. Her role includes coordinating efforts to increase the NSW Government’s ability to respond to and recover from whole‑of‑government threats and attacks.

Some of our case study agencies had strong processes for detection and response to cyber security incidents but others had a low capability to detect and respond in a timely way.

Most agencies have access to an automated tool for analysing logs generated by their IT systems. However, coverage of these tools varies. Some agencies do not have an automated tool and only review logs periodically or on an ad hoc basis, meaning they are less likely to detect incidents.

Few agencies have contractual arrangements in place for IT service providers to report incidents to them. If a service provider elects to not report an incident, it will delay the agency’s response and may result in increased damage.

Most case study agencies had procedures for responding to incidents, although some lack guidance on who to notify and when. Some agencies do not have response procedures, limiting their ability to minimise the business damage that may flow from a cyber security incident. Few agencies could demonstrate that they have trained their staff on either incident detection or response procedures and could provide little information on the role requirements and responsibilities of their staff in doing so.

Most agencies’ incident procedures contain limited information on how to report an incident, who to report it to, when this should occur and what information should be provided. None of our case study agencies’ procedures mentioned reporting to DFSI, highlighting that even though reporting is mandatory for most agencies their procedures do not require it.

Case study agencies provided little evidence to indicate they are learning from incidents, meaning that opportunities to better manage future incidents may be lost.

Recommendations

The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:

• assist agencies by providing:
  • better practice guidelines for incident detection, response and reporting to help agencies develop their own practices and procedures
  • training and awareness programs, including tailored programs for a range of audiences such as cyber professionals, finance staff, and audit and risk committees
  • role requirements and responsibilities for cyber security across government, relevant to size and complexity of each agency
  • a support model for agencies that have limited detection and response capabilities
     
• revise the Digital Information Security Policy and Information Security Event Reporting Protocol by
  • clarifying what security incidents must be reported to DFSI and when
  • extending mandatory reporting requirements to those NSW Government agencies not currently covered by the policy and protocol, including State owned corporations.

DFSI lacks a clear mandate or capability to provide effective detection and response support to agencies, and there is limited sharing of information on cyber security incidents.

DFSI does not currently have a clear mandate and the necessary resources and systems to detect, receive, share and respond to cyber security incidents across the NSW public sector. It does not have a clear mandate to assess whether agencies have an acceptable detection and response capability. It is aware of deficiencies in agencies and across whole‑of‑government, and has begun to conduct research into this capability.

Intelligence gathering across the public sector is also limited, meaning agencies may not respond to threats in a timely manner. DFSI has not allocated resources for gathering of threat intelligence and communicating it across government, although it has begun to build this capacity.

Incident reporting to DFSI is mandatory for most agencies, however, most of our case study agencies do not report incidents to DFSI, reducing the likelihood of containing an incident if it spreads to other agencies. When incidents have been reported, DFSI has not provided dedicated resources to assess them and coordinate the public sector’s response. There are currently no formal requirements for DFSI to respond to incidents and no guidance on what it is meant to do if an incident is reported. The lack of central coordination in incident response risks delays and increased damage to multiple agencies.

DFSI's reporting protocol is weak and does not clearly specify what agencies should report and when. This makes agencies less likely to report incidents. The lack of a standard format for incident reporting and a consistent method for assessing an incident, including the level of risk associated with it, also make it difficult for DFSI to determine an appropriate response.

There are limited avenues for sharing information amongst agencies after incidents have been resolved, meaning the public sector may be losing valuable opportunities to improve its protection and response.

Recommendations

The Department of Finance, Services and Innovation should:

• develop whole‑of‑government procedure, protocol and supporting systems to effectively share reported threats and respond to cyber security incidents impacting multiple agencies, including follow-up and communicating lessons learnt
• develop a means by which agencies can report incidents in a more effective manner, such as a secure online template, that allows for early warnings and standardised details of incidents and remedial advice
• enhance NSW public sector threat intelligence gathering and sharing including formal links with Australian Government security agencies, other states and the private sector
• direct agencies to include standard clauses in contracts requiring IT service providers report all cyber security incidents within a reasonable timeframe
• provide assurance that agencies have appropriate reporting procedures and report to DFSI as required by the policy and protocol by:
  • extending the attestation requirement within the DISP to cover procedures and reporting
  • reviewing a sample of agencies' incident reporting procedures each year.

Conclusion
The sharing of school facilities with the community is not fully effective. The Department of Education is implementing strategies to increase shared and joint use but several barriers, some outside the Department’s direct control, must be addressed to fully realise benefits to students and the community of sharing school facilities. In addition, the Department needs to do more to encourage individual schools to share facilities with the community. 

A collaborative, multi-agency approach is needed to overcome barriers to the joint use of facilities, otherwise, the Department may need significantly more funds than planned to deliver sufficient fit-for-purpose school facilities where and when needed.

Government policies encourage, but do not mandate, shared and joint use of facilities.

Since the early 2000’s, several reviews in NSW and other jurisdictions have commented on the benefits of and need to increase the sharing of school facilities. 

Several NSW Government strategies and plans support shared and joint use of facilities between schools and the wider community, but none are backed up with financial incentives, or specific plans with implementation timeframes. In Victoria and Queensland whole-of-government processes are in place to support a more coordinated approach to planning, building and sharing community facilities. For example, Victoria has a comprehensive policy framework encompassing both existing and future use of community facilities and a $50 million program to seed the development of community facilities on school sites over the next four years.  

The Department recognises benefits from the shared use of school facilities, but provides insufficient support to Principals to ensure costs are recovered and that money raised from shared use can be spent by the school in a timely manner. 

There are examples of successful shared use, but more can be done. Information about the available facilities is not readily available to potential community users. Schools should work more closely with councils and other stakeholders to leverage shared use. 

Currently, the administrative burden, costs and risks associated with shared use can exceed the perceived benefits to schools, leading to reluctance amongst some Principals to share. In addition, a substantial backlog of school-initiated infrastructure proposals awaiting Departmental approval means that schools that raise money from sharing their facilities find it difficult to use the funds they raise on improved infrastructure. Some of these proposals have been waiting for approval for more than 12 months. 

The Department could do more to support Principals by ensuring the fees charged for facilities cover the costs incurred by schools, that Principals can access help with negotiating and managing contracts, and that infrastructure proposals initiated and funded by schools are approved in a timely manner. 

The Department is not monitoring shared use across the State, and does not evaluate different approaches as evidence to influence policies and procedures.

Recommendations
By December, 2018, the Department should:

• increase incentives and reduce impediments for school Principals to share school facilities, including:
  • review the methodology for calculating fees charged for facilities to ensure that shared use of school facilities does not result in a financial burden to schools or the Department 
  • improve support provided to Principals by School Infrastructure NSW, including reducing the backlog of school-initiated infrastructure proposals awaiting approval
  • develop service standards, including timeframes, for assessing and approving school-initiated infrastructure proposals.
• provide readily-accessible information about available school facilities to community groups and local councils
• implement processes to monitor and regularly evaluate the implementation of the shared use policy and promote better practice to drive improvements.

The Department is planning a more strategic approach to increase the joint use of school facilities. However, several barriers, some outside the Department’s control, must be addressed to fully realise benefits of joint use agreements.

As discussed in our 2017 audit report on ‘Planning for school infrastructure’, joint use agreements are a key direction of the School Assets Strategic Plan. Joint use of school facilities will be necessary to ensure that there will be enough fit-for-purpose learning spaces for students when and where needed. Under the ‘Community Use of School Facilities Policy’ Principals play the leading role in identifying opportunities, and developing and managing agreements for sharing school facilities. This is impractical for joint use projects which involve substantial investment in new or refurbished assets, in particular for joint use projects in schools that are yet to be built. In addition, the policy does not address joint-use facilities built on land not owned by the Department. For these reasons, the Department is developing a new policy. 

The Department is planning to develop joint use agreements in a more systematic way as part of school community planning, previously known as cluster planning, with a special focus on local councils. Several agreements are currently being piloted, and will be evaluated to provide an evidence-based foundation for this new approach. 

To develop or refurbish school facilities for joint use, the Department, councils and other key stakeholders must work together and prioritise joint use from the earliest stages of any project. A collaborative, multi-agency approach is needed to ensure sufficient fit-for-purpose facilities are available for school students within the funding framework proposed in the School Assets Strategic Plan. 

To increase shared and joint use, the Department is recruiting specialist staff in its Asset Division to assist with the brokerage, community engagement and development of agreements, but these staff are not dedicated to joint use projects and their available time may not be sufficient to provide the necessary support in the timeframes required.

Recommendations
By December, 2018, the Department of Education should:

• ensure that the implementation of the new ‘Joint Use of School Facilities and Land Policy’ is adequately resourced, and has the support of Principals
• implement processes to monitor and regularly evaluate the implementation of joint use policy and promote better practice to drive improvements.  

Conclusion 

Several factors are reducing the effective use of ICT in the classroom. These are primarily:

• ageing ICT equipment and inadequate wireless networks
• variable student access to devices at school
• variable teacher access to centrally provided devices to use outside of the classroom.

Many schools are struggling to keep up with growing ICT needs within available funding. The Department needs to review whether its current technology programs provide schools with sufficient resources and support to meet the Department’s strategic goals for 21st Century classrooms. The Department should also target additional support to schools to improve planning for ICT resources.  

Most teachers are using ICT in the classroom, however, teacher access to devices outside the classroom varies between schools. In practice, teacher working days extend outside classroom hours. Teachers need access to devices for activities such as lesson preparation and student assessment. With limited access to devices outside of the classroom, teachers may not be able to effectively integrate ICT into lessons. Teachers also require further professional learning to support them to develop their skills in using ICT.  

The Department is not sufficiently monitoring the digital literacy of New South Wales students, which has declined in national tests. Teachers could benefit from support to assess these skills at a school level. The Department also needs to investigate links between student use of ICT and learning outcomes, so they can better support teachers with evidence-based approaches to enhancing learning through ICT.

 

Conclusion

For much of the last decade, there has been chronic under-investment in NSW government school infrastructure and deficiencies in asset planning. Many schools have more students than can be accommodated in existing classrooms, and demountables are widely used for extended periods. The condition of classrooms has been declining due to insufficient maintenance, and many are not configured to support contemporary and desired future learning and teaching methods. At the same time, the government school student population is predicted to grow further, particularly in Sydney.

In response to this challenging situation, the Department has recently developed a School Assets Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) designed to accommodate the expected student population up to 2031. This is the first such plan for the Department. It is a good plan. It covers the issues we would expect and has benefited from expert input and independent validation of assumptions, proposed solutions, and the likely costs.  

The strategy embodied in the Plan includes elements that may be confronting for the community. To contain costs, the Department proposes several potentially controversial changes to the way schools are planned, designed, built, managed and funded. These include increasing the maximum number of students in new and redeveloped schools; stronger emphasis on redeveloping schools; smaller, more intensely developed sites; changing and enforcing school catchments; increased partnerships with the private sector and more recycling of school assets to deliver better facilities.

Even with these reforms, the estimated cost of infrastructure needed up to 2031 is significantly more than the Department has been receiving to date. Without the proposed reforms, the Department will need much more again. The Department’s funding estimates are conservative due to the scale of proposed reform, the radical change it represents, and the risks to implementation. At the time of the audit, the government had not committed to make available the funding needed to implement the Plan.

Even if the Department obtains additional funding, implementing such a major reform will be challenging. It will require effective collaboration between, and the support of, school communities, local government, potential private sector partners, the non-government schools sector and government agencies. Many risks will need to be mitigated, any of which could undermine the strategy and drive up costs.  

Further savings beyond those already identified would be possible through changing operational policies on matters such as class sizes, operating hours, and single-sex, selective, sports and performing arts schools. Any changes to such policies have implications beyond just infrastructure cost and are likely to be even more controversial.