Governance… or lack thereof.
During 2024, and in addition to a ‘Why Co-education’ booklet, Headmaster, Michael Parker, published a defence of the College’s governance, titled: Our Governance and Openness (particularly on the issue of co-education). It is timely to analyse this document with the benefit of hindsight.
This post goes through Michael Parker’s points, and lets you, the reader, be the judge of the degree of openness, and how effective current governance standards actually are at the College.
The process of consultation prior to the co-ed announcement ticked many “procedural” boxes, but as time progressed it is more and more apparent that the deeply held views of the majority of stakeholders were not seriously considered or factored in, in any meaningful way prior to the co-ed announcement.
Views were being sought and forcefully communicated right up until the co-ed announcement date, and had these views influenced and shaped the review’s conclusions, then the announcement would have been very different. How could such a fixed, rigid plan for implementation over a relatively few short years have been framed after proper, open-minded consideration of the many major factors involved, and of the vocal concern of stakeholders? One can only arrive at the conclusion that the outcome was pre-determined.
The published table of Parent Priorities shown on P.14 of the Why document is practically meaningless. In order to downplay importance of the established boys-only educational format, Michael Parker relies on the data showing a penultimate ranking for ‘single sex environment’.
All priorities are important to all families to varying degrees depending on their situation.
Careful review shows that the highest 50% of priorities are those that parents and the school could reasonably influence, so they get a tick by respondents. The lowest priorities are those that are “givens” (except the questionable NAPLAN test results ranked last) and the many absolutely vital ones ranked well down in importance, clearly reflecting that they are “givens” – they are mainly structural or historical cornerstones of the school’s tradition and position – so why bother prioritizing them when answering a survey? Even the Why Co-education booklet admits this to be an influence on the ranking (P.13), noting that at the time of the 2021 survey there was no credible prospect that the school would transition away from its 162 year history.
Mr Parker’s attendance at 30 classes conducting SWOT analyses of a possible move to co-ed should be treated “with a grain of salt”. That data would have far more credibility if the various surveys were conducted without the Headmaster being in attendance, and without the likely soft influence of the Headmaster’s former co-ed Headmastership, published parody of single-sex education, and inferred support for the concept on each occasion. As often expressed by many parents of boys who were surveyed, despite his best intentions, boys are not impervious to the presence of the Headmaster and would be reluctant to express views contrary his known preferences.
The ONU survey results were in fact unambiguous, rather than showing a “broad range of views amongst alumni and benefactors of this single sex school” as suggested by the Headmaster. Recorded results when finally presented to ONU members showed 47% against co-ed, 32% in favour, 11% wanting more information (ie. what is actually being proposed?) and 10% were ‘don’t knows’. Even if those wanting more information and the ‘don’t knows’ were ultimately allocated equally to the opposing definite views, the results would be 57.5% against co-ed and 42.5% in favour.
It’s a majority NO and if our feedback since the date of that survey is anything to go by, support for a co-ed transition has waned further over the last 3 years increasing the majority opposed to co-ed even more strongly. This was in evidence at the ONU’s SGM in March 2024 (post co-ed announcement), at which the overwhelming majority in attendance expressed no confidence in the College Council by voice acclamation.
Whether or not to transition to co-ed is a decision that should be based not on a “crystal ball view” of the “future needs of society”, but on the demands of stakeholders here and now. They are the needs and preferences of families of both boys and girls for whom a choice of education format, including single-sex, is important to have. There are many co-ed alternatives already available, fewer girls-only options, and even fewer boys-only educational formats available in many parts of Sydney, including the Inner West.
So Why Coeducation? Now we get to the crux of he matter. The reasons listed are ALL speculative and ideological in nature. Financial success could continue to be achieved at Newington under careful fiscal management while continuing to meet consistent and strong demand as a boys school. In short, the Council has decided to transition a successful 162 year old school based on a few trendy once-fashionable ideas, supported by precious little educational or academic evidence. These predictions for the future include:
Consistency with Newington’s principles of diversity
THAT’S JUST PLAIN WRONG, less diversity is much more likely.
A better fit for tomorrow’s society and the world
MAYBE. MAYBE NOT. THERE ARE MASSIVE CHANGES IN STORE FOR THE WORLD AND CO-ED DURING FORMATIVE YEARS WILL NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE. THE QUALITY OF THE EDUCATION IS WHAT COUNTS
Can be a better experience for most students while still at school
IT’S WRONG TO GENERALISE about this – for many BOYS AND GIRLS IT WILL NOT BE A BETTER EXPERIENCE
Better at readying most students for life after school
WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR THAT? JUST SPECULATION, NO MORE NO LESS
Better aligned with what more future parents want.
WHO SAYS? The market says NO, WE WANT SINGLE-SEX EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR CHILDREN.
An opportunity for an even better culture at Newington
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? IS THIS A VEILED SWIPE AT THE TIRED OLD “TOXIC MASCULINITY” SHADOWS? THERE IS TOXIC BEHAVIOUR FROM TIME TO TIME AT ALL SCHOOLS, ESPECIALLY IN CO-ED HIGH SCHOOLS, AND BAD BEHAVIOUR SHOUD BE DEALT WITH AS IT OCCURS under effective governance principles.