Reports
Engagement of probity advisers and probity auditors
Three key agencies are not fully complying with the NSW Procurement Board’s Direction for engaging probity practitioners, according to a report released today by the Acting Auditor-General for New South Wales, Ian Goodwin. They also do not have effective processes to achieve compliance or assure that probity engagements achieved value for money.
Probity is defined as the quality of having strong moral principles, honesty and decency. Probity is important for NSW Government agencies as it helps ensure decisions are made with integrity, fairness and accountability, while attaining value for money.
Probity advisers provide guidance on issues concerning integrity, fairness and accountability that may arise throughout asset procurement and disposal processes. Probity auditors verify that agencies' processes are consistent with government laws and legislation, guidelines and best practice principles.
According to the NSW State Infrastructure Strategy 2018-2038, New South Wales has more infrastructure projects underway than any state or territory in Australia. The scale of the spend on procuring and constructing new public transport networks, roads, schools and hospitals, the complexity of these projects and public scrutiny of aspects of their delivery has increased the focus on probity in the public sector.
A Procurement Board Direction, 'PBD-2013-05 Engagement of probity advisers and probity auditors' (the Direction), sets out the requirements for NSW Government agencies' use and engagement of probity practitioners. It confirms agencies should routinely take into account probity considerations in their procurement. The Direction also specifies that NSW Government agencies can use probity advisers and probity auditors (probity practitioners) when making decisions on procuring and disposing of assets, but that agencies:
- should use external probity practitioners as the exception rather than the rule
- should not use external probity practitioners as an 'insurance policy'
- must be accountable for decisions made
- cannot substitute the use of probity practitioners for good management practices
- not engage the same probity practitioner on an ongoing basis, and ensure the relationship remains robustly independent.
The scale of probity spend may be small in the context of the NSW Government's spend on projects. However, government agencies remain responsible for probity considerations whether they engage external probity practitioners or not.
The audit assessed whether Transport for NSW, the Department of Education and the Ministry of Health:
- complied with the requirements of ‘PBD-2013-05 Engagement of Probity Advisers and Probity Auditors’
- effectively ensured they achieved value for money when they used probity practitioners.
These entities are referred to as 'participating agencies' in this report.
We also surveyed 40 NSW Government agencies with the largest total expenditures (top 40 agencies) to get a cross sector view of their use of probity practitioners. These agencies are listed in Appendix two.
Conclusion
We found instances where each of the three participating agencies had not fully complied with the requirements of the NSW Procurement Board Direction ‘PBD-2013-05 Engagement of Probity Advisers and Probity Auditors’ when they engaged probity practitioners. We also found they did not have effective processes to achieve compliance or assure the engagements achieved value for money.
In the sample of engagements we selected, we found instances where the participating agencies did not always:
- document detailed terms of reference
- ensure the practitioner was sufficiently independent
- manage probity practitioners' independence and conflict of interest issues transparently
- provide practitioners with full access to records, people and meetings
- establish independent reporting lines reporting was limited to project managers
- evaluate whether value for money was achieved.
We also found:
- agencies tend to rely on only a limited number of probity service providers, sometimes using them on a continuous basis, which may threaten the actual or perceived independence of probity practitioners
- the NSW Procurement Board does not effectively monitor agencies' compliance with the Direction's requirements. Our enquiries revealed that the Board has not asked any agency to report on its use of probity practitioners since the Direction's inception in 2013.
There are no professional standards and capability requirements for probity practitioners
NSW Government agencies use probity practitioners to independently verify that their procurement and asset disposal processes are transparent, fair and accountable in the pursuit of value for money.
Probity practitioners are not subject to regulations that require them to have professional qualifications, experience and capability. Government agencies in New South Wales have difficulty finding probity standards, regulations or best practice guides to reference, which may diminish the degree of reliance stakeholders can place on practitioners’ work.
The NSW Procurement Board provides direction for the use of probity practitioners
The NSW Procurement Board Direction 'PBD-2013-15 for engagement of probity advisers and probity auditors' outlines the requirements for agencies' use of probity practitioners in the New South Wales public sector. All NSW Government agencies, except local government, state owned corporations and universities, must comply with the Direction when engaging probity practitioners. This is illustrated in Exhibit 1 below.
Wellbeing of secondary school students
The Department of Education has a strong focus on supporting secondary school students’ wellbeing. However, it is difficult to assess how well the Department is progressing as it is yet to measure or report on the outcomes of this work at a whole-of-state level.
The Department of Education’s (the Department) purpose is to prepare young people for rewarding lives as engaged citizens in a complex and dynamic society. The Department commits to creating quality learning opportunities for children and young people, including a commitment to student wellbeing, which is seen as directly linked to positive learning outcomes. Wellbeing is defined broadly by the Department as “the quality of a person’s life…It is more than the absence of physical or psychological illness”. Student wellbeing can be supported by everything a school does to enhance a student's learning—from curriculum to teacher quality to targeted policies and programs to whole-school approaches to wellbeing.
Several reforms have aimed to support student wellbeing in recent years. 'Local Schools, Local Decisions' gave NSW schools more local authority to make decisions, including schools' approaches to support student wellbeing. In 2016, the 'Supported Students, Successful Students' initiative provided $167 million over four years to support the wellbeing of students. From 2018, the 'Every Student is Known, Valued and Cared For' initiative provides a principal led mentoring program, and a website with policies, procedures and resources to support student wellbeing.
This audit assessed how well the Department of Education supports secondary schools to promote and support the wellbeing of their students and how well secondary schools are promoting and supporting the wellbeing of their students.
Conclusion
The Department has implemented a range of programs and reforms aimed at supporting student wellbeing. However, the outcomes of this work have yet to be measured or reported on at a system level, making it difficult to assess the Department's progress in improving student wellbeing.
Secondary schools have generally adopted a structured approach to deliver wellbeing support and programs, using both Department and localised resources. The approaches have been tailored to meet the needs of their school community. That said, public reporting on wellbeing improvement measures via annual school reports is of variable quality and needs to improve.
The Department’s wellbeing initiatives are supported by research and consultation, but outcomes have not been reported on
The Department’s development of wellbeing policy, guidance, tools and resources has been transparent, consultative and well researched. It has drawn on international and domestic evidence to support its aim to deliver a fundamental shift from welfare to wellbeing at the school and system level.
However, the key performance indicator to monitor and track progress in wellbeing has yet to be reported on despite the strategic plan including this as a priority for the period 2018 to 2022. This includes not yet reporting a baseline for the target, nor how it will be measured.
The Department’s wellbeing resources are mostly well targeted but there is room for improvement
The Department’s allocation of resources to deliver wellbeing initiatives in schools is mostly well targeted, reflects a needs basis and supports current strategic directions. This could be improved with some changes to formula allocations and clearer definitions of the resourcing required for identified wellbeing positions in schools. The workforce modelling for forecasting supply and demand, specifically for school counsellors and psychologists, needs to separately identify these positions as they are currently subsumed in general teacher numbers.
Schools' reporting on wellbeing improvement measures is of variable quality and needs to improve
Schools we visited demonstrated a variety of approaches to wellbeing depending on their local circumstances and student populations. They make use of Department policies, guidelines, and resources, particularly mandatory policies and data collections, which have good compliance and take-up at school level. Professional learning supports specific wellbeing initiatives and online systems for monitoring and reporting have contributed to schools’ capacity and capabilities.
Schools report publicly on wellbeing improvement measures through annual school reports but this reporting is of variable quality. The Department plans to improve the capability of schools in data analysis and we recommend that this include the setting and evaluation of improvement targets for wellbeing.
The implementation of the 2015 Wellbeing Framework in schools is incomplete and the Department has not effectively prioritised and consolidated tools, systems and reporting for wellbeing
Schools' take up of the 2015 Wellbeing Framework is hindered by it not being linked to the school planning and reporting policy and tools—the School Excellence Framework. At some schools we visited, this disconnect has led to a lack of knowledge and confidence in using it in schools. The Department has identified the need to improve alignment of policies, frameworks and plans and has commenced work on this.
We found evidence of overburdening in schools for addressing student wellbeing—in the number of tools, online systems for information collection, and duplication in reporting. Following the significant reforms of recent years, the Department should consolidate its efforts by reinforcing existing effective programs and systems and addressing identified gaps and equity issues, rather than introducing further change for schools. In particular, methods and processes for complex case coordination need improvement.
The NSW Department of Education commits to creating quality learning opportunities for students. This includes strengthening students’ physical, social, emotional and spiritual development. The Department sets out to enable students to be healthy, happy, engaged and successful.
Welfare and wellbeing
The Department’s approach has significantly shifted from student welfare to wellbeing of the whole child and young person. Wellbeing is defined in departmental policy and strategy documents broadly, and as directly linked to learning and positive learning outcomes. “Wellbeing can be described as the quality of a person’s life…It is more than the absence of physical or psychological illness…Wellbeing, or the lack of it, can affect a student’s engagement and success in learning…”
Student wellbeing can be supported by everything a school does to enhance a student's learning—from curriculum to teacher quality to targeted policies and programs to whole-school approaches to wellbeing. Distinctions between wellbeing and welfare in the school context are outlined below.
| Welfare | Wellbeing |
|---|---|
| Operates from a basis of student need and doesn't always take into account a whole child view. | For all students. |
| Rather than building on the strengths of students, operates from a deficit model of individual student problems or negative behaviours. | Goes beyond just welfare needs of a few students and aims for all students to be healthy, happy, successful and productive individuals who are active and positive contributors to the school and society in which they live. |
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - Key policies, guidance, and systems
Appendix three - Funding and resources for schools
Appendix four - Measuring wellbeing
Appendix five - About the audit
Appendix six - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #318 - released 23 May 2019
Workforce reform in three amalgamated councils
The Inner West Council and the Snowy Monaro and Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Councils have all made progress towards efficient organisational structures following the amalgamation of their former council areas in 2016, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General of New South Wales.
All three councils are now operating with a single workforce and have largely achieved the milestones they planned for the first stage of their amalgamations. None have finished reviewing and aligning services across their former council areas nor integrated their ICT systems. They need to do this to be in a position to implement an optimal structure.
On 12 May 2016, the NSW Government announced the amalgamation of 42 councils into 19 new councils. This followed a period of 18 months during which the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) had assessed councils' ‘fitness for the future’, and communities were consulted about proposed mergers. A further amalgamated council was created on 9 September 2016.
Upon amalgamation, existing elected councils were abolished, interim General Managers appointed, and Administrators engaged to undertake the role of the previously elected councils until Local Government elections were held 18 months later. During the period of administration, councils were asked to report on the progress of their amalgamations to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC).
Council amalgamations not only require a re-drawing of boundaries, but re-establishment of local representation, decisions about alignment of services across the former council areas, and establishment of an amalgamated workforce.
The objective of this audit was to assess whether three councils, Inner West Council, Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council and Snowy Monaro Regional Council, are effectively reforming their organisation structures to realise efficiency benefits from amalgamation and managing the impact on staff.
Following amalgamation, all three councils developed detailed plans to bring their former workforces together, review positions and salaries, amalgamate salary structures and align human resources policies. All three councils have largely achieved the milestones included in these plans.
Benefits realisation plans show that councils did not expect to achieve material savings or efficiencies from workforce reform within the first three years of amalgamation.
Administrators at all three councils endorsed lower savings targets than the NSW Government’s early analysis suggested may be possible. All three councils have plans or strategies to progress and achieve benefits from the amalgamation. However, Inner West Council and Snowy Monaro Regional Council could more clearly link their reform initiatives with expected benefits and include this in public reporting.
Amalgamations represent a substantial period of change for affected communities and amalgamated councils should be routinely reporting to their communities about the costs and benefits of amalgamation.
Councils have not yet determined their future service offerings and service levels nor completed integration of ICT systems. These decisions need to be made before an optimal organisation structure can be implemented.
Before amalgamated councils can implement an optimal organisation structure, they need to review and confirm their customer service offerings and service levels in consultation with their communities. This work is underway but is not yet complete in any of the councils.
Progress towards an efficient structure has been slowed by staff protections in the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) and a range of logistical and administrative issues associated with amalgamation. These include multiple IT systems and databases that need to be integrated and different working conditions, policies and practices in the former councils that are not yet fully
harmonised.
The councils implemented legislated staff protections and focused on the people side of change but cannot reliably measure the impact of their change management efforts.
The Act provides protections that reduce the impact of amalgamations on staff. Beyond implementing these protections, the councils have communicated with staff, sought to prepare them for change, and involved staff in key decisions. All councils have conducted staff surveys over time. However, at this stage these staff surveys have not provided an effective or reliable measure of the impact of change management efforts.
Appendix one - Response from councils and Office of Local Government
Appendix two - Compliance with staff protections in the Local Government Act 1993
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #317 - released 1 May 2019
Governance of Local Health Districts
The main roles, responsibilities and relationships between Local Health Districts (LHDs), their Boards and the Ministry of Health are clear and understood, according to a report released today by the Auditor-General for New South Wales, Margaret Crawford. However, there are opportunities to achieve further maturity in the system of governance and the audit report recommended a series of actions to further strengthen governance arrangements.
Fifteen Local Health Districts (LHDs) are responsible for providing public hospital and related health services in NSW. LHDs are:
- established as statutory corporations under the Health Services Act 1997 to manage public hospitals and provide health services within defined geographical areas
- governed by boards of between six and 13 people appointed by the Minister for Health
- managed by a chief executive who is appointed by the board with the concurrence of the Secretary of NSW Health
- accountable for meeting commitments made in annual service agreements with the NSW Ministry of Health.
The NSW Ministry of Health (the Ministry) is the policy agency for the NSW public health system, providing regulatory functions, public health policy, as well as managing the health system, including monitoring the performance of hospitals and health services.
The current roles and responsibilities of LHDs and the Ministry, along with other agencies in NSW Health, were established in 2011 following a series of reforms to the structure and governance of the system. These reforms began with the report of the 'Special Commission of Inquiry into Acute Care Services in NSW Public Hospitals' ('the Garling Inquiry'), which was released in 2008, and were followed by reforms announced by the incoming coalition government in 2011.
These reforms were intended to deliver greater local decision making, including better engagement with clinicians, consumers, local communities, and other stakeholders in the primary care (such as general practitioners) and non-government sectors.
The reforms empowered LHDs by devolving some management and accountability from the Ministry for the delivery of health services in their area. LHDs were made accountable for meeting annual obligations under service agreements.
This audit assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of the governance arrangements for LHDs. We answered two questions:
- Are there clear roles, responsibilities and relationships between the Ministry of Health and LHDs and within LHDs?
- Does the NSW Health Performance Framework establish and maintain accountability, oversight and strategic guidance for LHDs?
- continued progress in moving toward patient experience, outcome, and quality and safety measures
- improving the Health Performance Framework document to ensure it is comprehensive, clear and specifies decision makers
- greater clarity in the nexus between underperformance and escalation decisions
- including governance-related performance measures
- more rigour in accountability for non-service activity functions, including consumer and community engagement
- ensuring that performance monitoring and intervention is consistent with the intent of devolution.
NSW Health is large and complex system, operating in a dynamic environment. The governance reforms introduced in 2011 were significant and it is reasonable that they take time to mature.
The main roles of LHDs and the Ministry are clear and well-understood, and there is good collaboration between different parts of the system. This provides a sound foundation on which to further mature the governance arrangements of LHDs.
While the broad roles of LHDs, their boards, and the Ministry are well understood by stakeholders in the system, there are matters of detail and complexity that create ambiguity and uncertainty, including:
- the roles and relationships between the LHDs and the Pillars
- to what extent LHDs have discretion to pursue innovation
- individual responsibility and obligations between chairs, boards, executive staff, and the Ministry.
These should be addressed collaboratively between boards, their executives, and the Ministry, and should be informed by a statement of principles that guides how devolved decision making should be implemented.
Better clinician engagement in health service decision making was a key policy driver for devolution. Priority should be given by LHDs and the Ministry to ensuring that clinicians are adequately engaged in LHD decision making. It appears that in many cases they are not, and this needs to be addressed.
The quality of board decision making depends on the information they are provided and their capacity to absorb and analyse that information. More can be done to promote good decision making by improving the papers that go to boards, and by ensuring that board members are well positioned to absorb the information provided. This includes ensuring that the right type and volume of information are provided to boards, and that members and executive managers have adequate data literacy skills to understand the information.
Recommendations
- By December 2019, the Ministry of Health should:
- work with LHDs to identify and overcome barriers that are limiting the appropriate engagement of clinicians in decision making in LHDs
- develop a statement of principles to guide decision making in a devolved system
- provide clarity on the relationship of the Agency for Clinical Innovation and the Clinical Excellence Commission to the roles and responsibilities of LHDs.
- By June 2020, LHDs boards, supported where appropriate by the Ministry of Health, should address the findings of this performance audit to ensure that local practices and processes support good governance, including:
- providing timely and consistent induction; training; and reviews of boards, members and charters
- ensuring that each board's governance and oversight of service agreements is consistent with their legislative functions
- improving the use of performance information to support decision making by boards and executive managers.
This cultural shift has achieved greater recognition of the importance of transparency in how well LHDs perform. However, as NSW Health is a large, complex and dynamic system, it is important that these accountability and oversight mechanisms continue to evolve to ensure that they are sufficiently robust to support good governance.
There are areas where accountability and oversight can be improved including:
- continued progress in moving toward patient experience, outcome and value-based measures
- improving the Health Performance Framework document to ensure it is comprehensive, clear and specifies decision makers
- greater clarity in the nexus between underperformance and escalation decisions
- by adding governance-related performance measures to service agreements
- more rigour in accountability for non-service activity functions, such as consumer and community engagement
- ensuring that performance monitoring and intervention is consistent with the intent of devolution.
Recommendations
3. By June 2020, the Ministry of Health should improve accountability and oversight mechanisms by:
a) revising the Health Performance Framework so that it is a cohesive and comprehensive document
b) clarifying processes and decision making for managing performance concerns
c) developing a mechanism to adequately hold LHDs accountable for non-service activity functions
d) reconciling performance monitoring and intervention with the policy intent of devolution.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - Functions of a Local Health District
Appendix three - Functions of a Local Health District Board
Appendix four - Routine performance monitoring and reporting
Appendix five - Escalation model for the NSW Health Performance Framework
Appendix six - About the audit
Appendix seven - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #316 - released 18 April 2019
Supply of secondary teachers in STEM-related disciplines
The NSW Department of Education’s plans and strategies to respond to the demand for secondary teachers in STEM-related disciplines are limited by incomplete data and underperforming scholarship and sponsorship program. The Department does not collect sufficient information to monitor what disciplines teachers actually teach nor does it predict supply and demand for teachers by discipline and location. This restricts the Department’s ability to track and forecast the supply and demand for secondary teachers in STEM-related disciplines.
In recent years, Australian and international education policy has focused on improving outcomes in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects. However, research has identified a shortage of qualified secondary teachers in STEM-related disciplines 1. This is projected to worsen due to a combination of student population increases, an ageing workforce, and fewer people going into teaching. Shortfalls are likely to be more acute in rural and remote areas, and areas of low socio-economic status.
The Department of Education (the Department) has a variety of strategies to encourage teachers to practise in locations or disciplines of need. These include scholarships for tertiary students going into teaching, sponsorships for teachers seeking approval to teach additional disciplines, and incentives to attract teachers to rural and remote locations.
This audit assessed the effectiveness of the Department's workforce plans and strategies in responding to the demand for secondary teachers in STEM-related disciplines. We assessed:
- how well the Department tracks the supply and demand for secondary teachers in STEM-related disciplines across NSW
- whether the Department has effective strategies to attract and retain secondary teachers in STEM-related disciplines.
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:
- 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.
Appendix one - Response from agency
Appendix two - About the audit
Appendix three - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference - Report number #313 - released 29 January 2019.
