Who writes long hand much any more??

The most I do these days is my signature and hastily concocted shopping lists (sometimes).

BTW, this is coming from someone who actually did the handwriting examples for the area implementation of a new Handwriting Syllabus in NSW many years ago.

And an ex Computers in Schools program co-ordinator who thinks the pencil is one of best pieces of technology ever. It always works in blackouts and you can erase it LOL.

What practical difference would it make if the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training disappeared in a puff of smoke today?

Very little indeed, and as a bonus, hopefully the awful NAPLAN tests would disappear as well. 

I agree the structure has become inflated in the wrong areas.  When I left there were positions that oversaw the activities of AO5 Managers who reported to Faculty Heads.  At that AO5 level you should have enough experiance and ability to report directly to the Faculty Head, if you don't, you shouldn't have the job.  There is or was a whole level of "Management" that is not required other than to boost the position levels of those above.

Better to lose a couple of middle managers and use the funding to employ more staff at the delivery end.  It is a much more effective use of funds.

I always had the view that if I had to continually micro manage staff, they should not have the job and neither should I, you train them to do the job correctly and then leave them to it, but you always monitor them in the background and make sure that they coping and you ensure they are comfortable coming to you for advice.

In the States and Territories where the education and training delivery actually takes place there are similarly bloated, mushroom structured education administrations in the capital cities.

The saying is that those who cannot teach are rapidly 'elevated' to positions in the education department.  Where they are expensive overheads forever, but at least they are not anywhere near students.

Yes, those education administrations do have a role.  But do their staffs, all with 'policy', 'coordination' and 'management' on their job descriptions have to so numerous that they require whole high rise buildings for offices? (sic)

The pity is that when Labor takes the reins, it is those bureaucrats that breed like topsy and all finding new ways to justify their own existence.

Shorten doesn't need new taxes, he should be putting his ministers to the job of getting rid of padding first.  Of course, that means that some ministers might have to go and the number of political appointments will be decreased somewhat.  And the Congo Line is already there for political appointments for seats on the federal gravy train even before the poll takes place.

Nothing will ever change, will it?

L.J don't know what state you live in , but in Queensland the last two cuts to Public Service postions were by Labor and they were decried for doing so by the LNP.

It's not all about politics.  Just the majority of it.

I know from experiance, under any government you cut a full time positin to reduce salary costs, then you employ a Contract/Consultant replacement who costs more and pay them out of a different bucket of money.  Then you get praised for cutting salary costs because the expenditure doesn't show up as a salary cost.

I was approached while still employed and waiting for my payout by an Employment Agent to fill the same position I held in a different department as a labour hire staffer, I refused because I had had enough of government work.

As far as defining the value of Managers goes, I personally find the notion of judging the importance of a Manager by how many staff they have about as usefull as judging a Naval Captains competence as was done in the 16th. century by how many people were killed on both sides in a battle. 

If you take a look at a system like that, you are encouraging a Manager to employ as many people as possible in order to create salary upgrades for themselves.  What we are saying is, a good Manager who is effeicient and makes the most of the staff they have will have lesser chance of a salary increase than one who inflates the number of staff in their charge.  Determining the value of a Manager by use of the numbers under their control is not efficient or fair, like it or not managing a process is sometimes going to save a company more than just looking over peoples shoulders.

I was a Manager who had direct control over three people, but I managed a process and provided ongoing training and support for 600, I saved more money for the organisation than most of the Managers earning 30% more than I did, who had many more people in their areas.

Where 95% of the staff of the Commonwealth Dept of Education and Training are in management and executive leadership roles the most obvious explanation using Occam's Razor is that there has been substantial classification creep upwards over time.

Using Occam's Razor again, the most obvious and simple reason for the classification creep would be to overcome any restrictions on pay rises. -Most likely too, it (classification creep) would have been seen as 'necessary' by division heads to compete for the graduate intake each year. 

Also from APS information, the department (like others) automatically advances its recruited graduates to middle management, APS4-5 and sometimes above at the conclusion of their training year.  Unless the department can provide reasons for that it is costly Credentialism and probably has a high wastage of the graduates soon after their first year through unfulfilled/unrealistic/naive expectations of the work.

One assumes too that such recruitment and classification creep can be employed as artifices to increase and retain the number of affirmative action categories, such as women.  But quite obviously, the churn of women for example, is no better than it has been historically.  Maybe women have better things to do than become career bureaucrats or do not preference a career above other choices, their choices.

Relevant background: the APS Public Service Board used to have the role of controlling establishments through the requirement for C'wealth departments to obtain its approval to the creation of new positions and the reclassification of existing positions.  The removal of that role, the corporatisation of departments and other 'initiatives' could be having negative consequences such as the gross classification creep in the subject department.

However, to cut to the chase, this department, this large mushroom-shaped structure with so many highly remunerated staff exists solely to 'oversight' the policy, coordination and delivery already being managed by the State and Territory agencies.  It is the redundancy introduced by Menzies.

If it disappeared tomorrow maybe more State and Territory managers could devote more of their resources to delivery rather than providing data for the feds to mull over (and do what, exactly?).

What will an incoming Labor administration do about it?  Feed the mushroom one might guess.  Hey, there are two ministerial jobs available and the feds don't have to do anything but 'oversight' and purse lips at those who are actually doing the real work in the States and Territories.

Slow day.

..... think you hit the nail on the head Cats  - good 'ole "barrywind"(bag)  lol - only joined a couple of days ago ....

..no "new" member even ventures into the Meeting Place in 48 hours - little own goes back through millions of Topics to find garbage from 7 years ago!    JOKE ....

....Trollsville at it again ................................ HAHA

You are on a very relevant thread. Perhaps you would benefit from some "education" yourself. Your behaviour is quite appalling. 

Have you stopped to notice the quality of the posters now visiting the forum? I am afraid you are letting the forum done.

You have no responsibility to admonish Abe and others in any way because if people are attacked they have all right to return the attack.

Abe handles this by using humour because he is a very intelligent and well brought up man..unfortunately..I cannot say the same for you catsahoy.

Correction: should be "down" not "done"..2nd para, 2nd line.

Thanks Sophie, but it won't make any difference to her until the mods get hold of her tail and dock it.