Refine search

Reports

1 November 2017

Published

Sharing school and community facilities

Education

Infrastructure

Management and administration

Risk

Shared services and collaboration

Schools and the community would benefit if school facilities were shared more often.

The Department of Education’s ‘Community Use of School Facilities Policy’ encourages but does not require schools to share facilities. Sharing depends heavily on the willingness of school principals and there are few incentives. There are many challenges in developing agreements with community users and there is only limited support available from the Department.

There are strategies and plans to support the sharing of facilities between schools and the wider community, but none are backed up with budgets, specific plans or timeframes.

Governments should strive for the best use of assets. This is particularly important in the context of a growing New South Wales population, fiscal constraints and increasing demand for services.

Lack of available land, rising land costs and population growth highlighted in our April 2017 'Planning for school infrastructure' performance audit report mean that new and existing schools will need to share their facilities with communities more than is currently the case.

This audit assessed how effectively schools share facilities with each other, local councils and community groups. In making this assessment, the audit examined whether the Department of Education (Department):

has a clear policy to encourage and support facilities sharing
is implementing evidence-based strategies and procedures for facilities sharing
can show it is realising an increasing proportion of sharing opportunities.

Facilities sharing is the use of a physical asset, such as a building, rooms, or open spaces, by more than one group for a range of activities at the same time or at different times. For the purposes of this audit, we have divided sharing arrangements into two types: shared use and joint use.

Shared use refers to arrangements where existing school assets are hired out for non-school purposes, usually for a limited time. The assets remain under the control of the school. Generally, there is little alteration or enhancement to the asset required to enable shared use. Shared use can also refer to schools using external facilities, such as council pools, but these arrangements are not included within the scope of this audit.

Joint use refers to arrangements where new or upgraded school and non-school facilities or community hubs are planned, funded, built and jointly shared between a school and other parties, usually involving significant investment.

Both shared use and joint use agreements are governed by contractual obligations.

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.

Appendix one - Response from agency

Appendix two - About the audit

Appendix three - Victoria's 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy

Appendix four - Not-for-profit hire changes

Appendix five - Performance Auditing

Parliamentary reference - Report number #293 - released 1 November 2017

4 May 2017

Published

Planning for school infrastructure

Education

Infrastructure

Management and administration

Project management

The Department of Education proposes to fundamentally reform school infrastructure planning and delivery to meet the future demand for student places, and to overcome chronic under-investment for much of the last decade. To do this, it will need to spend much more than it has been receiving to date.

The Department of Education (Department) must provide students with a place in a government school if parents desire it. Over the next 15 years, the student population in NSW Government and non-government schools is projected to grow by 21 per cent to nearly 1.5 million students. Over 80 per cent of this is expected to be in the Sydney metropolitan area.

Improving education outcomes of students is a NSW State Priority. Research shows that well designed and maintained facilities improve student learning outcomes. A strategic objective of the 2014 State Infrastructure Strategy Update is to ‘equip growing urban and regional populations with the modern schools and training infrastructure required to deliver educational service for a competitive, innovative economy’.

This audit assessed whether the Department has a strategy and implementation model to ensure it has sufficient fit-for-purpose student learning spaces when and where needed.

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.

Asset planning and investment for much of the last decade has been deficient

Over the last decade, there has been chronic under-investment in NSW Government school infrastructure. This has affected both new works and maintenance of existing assets. Until recently, the Department did not have a high-level, long-term school asset strategic plan. The Department had limited understanding of the funds needed over the long term to provide the necessary school infrastructure to meet educational needs of students economically. It had no robust method to determine whether priorities were correct and assess whether the funding split between building, upgrading and maintaining was appropriate.

Permanent classrooms in 37 per cent of government schools are fully utilised, and 180 schools are operating beyond their permanent classroom capacity. The utilisation rates vary between regions and districts. Demountables are being used for extended periods to cater for permanent student population growth. A significant increase in the number of demountables at some schools decreased student access to amenities and open play spaces.

The Department now has a Plan to meet future needs

The Department recently developed a Strategic Plan designed to ensure that there are sufficient fit-for-purpose places for students where and when required up to 2031. The Strategic Plan outlines the:

predicted demand for future learning spaces
condition of existing infrastructure and additional infrastructure and maintenance required
proposed new initiatives to deliver the required infrastructure economically
proposed new cluster planning model to determine priorities and initiatives to be implemented at the school level
funding needed to provide appropriate learning spaces where and when needed.

The Strategic Plan has been developed with the benefit of expert advice and has been reviewed extensively within the Department, by other key government agencies and experts. The review process examined the Strategic Plan’s assumptions, data quality, proposals and cost estimation approach. This process has increased assurance and improved the Strategic Plan, but has delayed implementation by approximately a year so far.

Many more learning spaces will be needed

The Strategic Plan identifies that over the next 15 years the student population in government schools will increase by 21 per cent and that the Department will need:

7,200 additional classrooms and to upgrade many existing classrooms to meet future teaching and learning needs
to undertake much more planned maintenance, otherwise 40 per cent of existing government school buildings will be in such poor condition that learning outcomes could be compromised.

The Department proposes a new approach designed to minimise costs

Given the need for substantial additional infrastructure and maintenance, and underfunding over the last decade, the Department has sought to minimise costs while maintaining quality.

Initiatives proposed include an increase in the maximum number of students in new and redeveloped schools; a stronger emphasis on redeveloping existing schools; smaller, more intensely developed school sites; strengthening partnerships with the private sector to improve school assets; and school consolidation and sale of surplus land to reinvest in better facilities. We did not identify any additional options that could be proposed to make further cost saving under current operational policy settings.

The proposed new cluster planning model will assess schools in a region or district to identify the best way to deliver school assets to a cluster as a whole rather than individual schools. It will identify the most effective and efficient asset solution within a cluster of five to 15 schools.

It represents an improvement over the previous model which addressed infrastructure needs on a school-by-school basis. The initial focus of school cluster planning will be on areas of highest student growth.

The proposed new cluster planning model has potential to create efficiencies and economies of scale if implemented well. Cluster planning will determine which of the various initiatives should be implemented in the schools in the cluster. It recognises that solving enrolment trends in one school requires consideration of surrounding schools and seeks the optimum asset solution for identified schools.

Implementation will be a major challenge

Effective implementation will require good collaboration with other government agencies, non-government schools, the private sector and the community. The Department has been improving its consultation with other government agencies and the non-government school sector, and has developed models for collaborating with the community and private sector. The Strategic Plan proposes open access to information, which will be important for effective collaboration and partnerships.

There are many risks to effective implementation, which could drive up costs. These include opposition from school communities, a reduction in the proportion of students educated in non-government schools, unexpected increases in land and construction costs, failure to sufficiently streamline the planning approval system or a blow-out in renovation costs in older schools.

To provide and maintain the infrastructure needed up until 2031, the Department estimates it will need significantly more money than it receives now even if it implements its initiatives and cluster planning effectively. It would require much more again if it was to retain its current approach to planning and delivering school infrastructure.

The current school infrastructure funding arrangement does not support effective long-term planning. A four-year commitment to education infrastructure funding does not provide the flexibility needed for the Department to manage its allocations and respond to changes in priorities or emerging challenges. The Health and Transport clusters receive a ten-year funding commitment, known as a capital planning limit.

Changing operational policies could increase school utilisation

Further significant cost savings are only likely if the Department changes some operational policies. Class size is a key determinant of the number of classrooms needed. Choice in school enrolment and the existence of single-sex, selective, sports or creative and performing arts schools all can lead to underutilisation of schools and classrooms because they are not accessible to all students.

The Department of Education should:

1. regularly revisit and evaluate the Strategic Plan to keep it contemporary, refine it based on learnings, update cost estimates to reflect actual results, and respond to available funding

2. work with NSW Treasury to develop a framework for partnering with the private sector

3. align Total Asset Management plans with cluster plans as they are developed

4. closely consult and collaborate with communities on implementation of the Strategic Plan

5. continue to collaborate with key government agencies, local government, the non-government school sector and the private sector on implementation of the Strategic Plan

6. publish detailed information on the status of assets, current and projected enrolments, and planned school projects to support effective consultation and collaboration

7. seek a ten-year capital planning limit from NSW Treasury

8. advise the government on options to change operational policies and practices to reduce infrastructure requirements.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #284 - released 4 May 2017

26 May 2016

Published

Early childhood education

Education

Compliance

Information technology

Management and administration

Project management

Regulation

Risk

Service delivery

Workforce and capability

Enrolments in quality early childhood education programs in New South Wales are increasing but are below the national benchmark, according to a report released today by the NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford.

Ninety-five per cent of children should be enrolled in at least 600 hours in the year before school, but according to the latest NSW figures 77 per cent of children were enrolled in quality early childhood education programs. This 2015 figure is below the benchmark, but is a significant improvement on 2013 when 59 per cent were enrolled.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #271 - released 26 May 2016

28 August 2003

Published

Freedom of Information

Transport

Premier and Cabinet

Education

Management and administration

Regulation

Service delivery

Freedom of Information (FOI) Coordinators and their staff were supportive of the legislation. However, the agencies examined can do considerably more to fully achieve the intentions of the Act. On the positive side, all three agencies had processes in place to handle requests and had made a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the FOI process. Fees and charges had also been kept to a minimum. No processing fees were requested in the majority of cases, and if charged, were not unreasonable.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #114 - released 28 August 2003