early days - review of the ccsp

“EARLY DAYS”

REPORT OF A REVIEW OF

THE COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC SCHOOL PARENTS

IN ITS EARLY DAYS

1995 to 1999

Conducted by

Dr Ross Keane

Presented 26 November 1999

i.

WORDS TAKEN FROM

ONE BISHOP’S SUBMISSION

TO THIS REVIEW

We are in the “early days” of the existence

of these bodies established to foster fulfilment

of the role of parents of Catholic school

children, including the right and need for

parents’ voices to be heard and heeded at

every level of the Catholic Church’s school-

education endeavour. Progress has been made

and, please God, the appropriate path ahead

will continue to be discerned and further

sound progress will be made. There is

abundant goodwill: and whatever the

uncertainties, pressures, reluctances, and the

objective difficulties with “getting it right”,

I am confident that the establishment of

parish/school, diocesan and “State” bodies is a

praiseworthy step, one filled with potential.

ii.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Words taken from one Bishop’s submission to this Review ............................. Page i.

Table of Contents .............................................................................................. Page ii.

Part One : History and Design of the Review

...................................................................................................... Page 1.

Part Two : CCSP as I has evolved in these early days

...................................................................................................... Page 5.

Part Three : Achievements and Struggles Of These Early Days

: The Perspective Of Diocesan Parent Organisations

..................................................................................................... Page 11.

Part Four : Achievements and Challenges Of These Early Days

: The Perspective Of The Reviewer

...................................................................................................... 7.

Part Five : Discerning The Appropriate Path Ahead

...................................................................................................... Page 55.

Part 6 : A Recommended Strategic Development Framework

2000 – 2004

...................................................................................................... Page 68.

iii.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 This Review examined the development of the Council of Catholic School Parents from

1995 to 1999 in terms of preamble and purposes of its Constitution. It examined the

current state of the Council with a focus on individual Diocesan Parent Bodies, their

representation of parents, and the operation of the Council Secretariat. The Review was

conducted in close consultation with the Diocesan Representatives on Council.

2.0 Key findings included:

CCSP has quickly gained wide recognition as the official representative voice of

Catholic school parents in important educational forums.

The energy, dedication and commitment of those on the CCSP Secretariat and

Management Committee and the Diocesan Parent Bodies has kept the momentum

going.

CCSP has linked Dioceses successfully and fostered the sharing of wisdom and a

more widespread grasp of the bigger educational picture.

Successful efforts in partnership have been achieved.

There has been substantial goodwill from other Catholic organisations in assisting

CCSP in these early days of its existence.

The establishment of CCSP facilitated the development of new Diocesan Parent

Bodies and has stimulated the renewal of others.

Parent leaders now have a better knowledge of the educational issues and the realities

of non-government school management. Theoretically there is a mechanism to pass

on this knowledge to the mass of parents at school level.

Parents now have a focus and a network for dealing with issues of importance

concerning children.

3.0 A number of common concerns were identified. These included:

The difficulties of getting parents involved and being truly representative of the bulk

of parents in Catholic schools.

The under resourcing of the Secretariat leading to difficulties in regularly producing

the “Parent Net”, finalising position statements, following up responses to surveys;

research; and dealing with issues of duplication and paper overload.

iv.

Some concern about independence vis-a-vis the CEC, NSW and Bishops, and the

associated challenge to be members of the total Catholic community and to find ways

to represent parents within the Catholic context.

The extreme difficulties of time and adequate resourcing facing volunteer parents

and the ever-present danger of burn-out.

4.0 The strengths and achievements of the CCSP and its constituent Diocesan Parent Bodies in

the period 1995 – 1999 out-number the concerns.

5.0 Many suggestions for improvement were generated during this Review and these were

formulated on draft recommendations and tested against CCSP Representatives for

feedback and levels of support prior to the development of the Review recommendations.

6.0 Eleven themes which emerged strongly in this Review were:

Strengthen grass roots involvement.

Strengthen the support role of the Executive Officer.

Develop regular schedules and procedures.

Increase the level of support for Diocesan representatives.

Promote publicly the CCSP mission and its Catholic school identity.

Communication: Revitalise Parent Net.

Communication: Use technology more fully.

Communication: Respond more quickly to issues.

Communication: Dialogue with Bishops and CEO/CSO Directors.

Develop formation, succession and induction programs.

Affirmation and recognition of parent efforts.

7.0 Four (4) Priority Areas are nominated to be the focus of effort and energy for the next

period in the existence of CCSP. These are:

Priority One: Strengthen the CCSP Secretariat and Support for Diocesan

Representatives

Priority Two: Strengthen Grass Roots Involvement

Priority Three: Promote the mission, role and Catholic identity of CCSP

Priority Four: Improve Communication

v.

8.0 The following Strategic Framework is proposed as a map for the path ahead in the years

2000 – 2004 :

Priority One: Strengthen the CCSP Secretariat and Support for Diocesan Representatives

Goals To Be Achieved By 2000 – 2004

Goal 1.1 A full-time Executive Officer with adequate secretarial support will be appointed.

Goal 1.2 The CCSP Executive Officer will have adequate assistance to help in such areas as:

publishing Parent Net more regularly and on time.

updating the web-site.

assisting Representatives to communicate with their Diocesan parents.

chasing up “loose ends” with representatives.

researching issues and preparing summary of papers.

agenda preparation and post-meeting actioning.

co-ordinating regular formation and in-service programs for parents.

Goal 1.3 CCSP communication will be streamlined. It will provide more frequent, direct

information to Diocesan Parent Bodies in simple regular formats. Current

information will be posted regularly on the web-site.

Goal 1.4 CCSP will develop a stronger financial base to enable it to maintain a strong level

of vitality and to more effectively service Diocesan Parent Bodies.



Goal 2.1 Each Diocesan Parent Body will develop and implement an overall plan for

generating interest and greater participation from parents at local levels.

This plan should:

establish firm open lines of communication.

consider ways of tapping into parent interest in local issues which affect

them.

repeatedly put before parents evidence of successes in addressing issues.

stress educational involvement which goes beyond compliant non-

intervention.

stress trust and relationship building with the local principal.

Possible strategies for this plan may be found in Part Three of this Review Report

in the achievements of the various Diocesan Parent Bodies

Goal 2.2 Each Diocesan Parent Body will develop a plan:

to identify and prepare parents who could take on Representative roles.

to provide leadership development programs focused on parents who are in

school bodies or cluster/regional representation.

Goal 2.3 CCSP and the CEC, NSW will develop some joint workshops on key themes

identified in the Review, eg :

ways of reaching and involving parents at the local level.

the struggle to avoid rhetoric and develop greater authenticity in partnership.

Goal 2.4 Diocesan Parent Bodies and the CCSP will develop and document formal processes

of induction for new Representatives. The induction will contain a trigger to ensure

it is always implemented.

vi.

Goal 2.5 Diocesan Parent Bodies will liaise with their Catholic Education Offices to achieve

effective support positions for development and formation of parents as an integral

part of CEO/CSO services.

Goal 2.6 Diocesan Parent Bodies and the CCSP will formulate guidelines as to what

categories of issues will normally be the subject of widespread consultation with

school level parents and what decisions/opinions/directions will come from

Diocesan Executive Committees who have been elected to represent parents.



Goal 3.1 CCSP will be known and accepted within the public arena as the voice of Catholic

school parents.

Goal 3.2 CCSP will develop a strategy of promotion which has a strong emphasis on

informing parents at the grass roots level about the achievements of CCSP and the

Diocesan Parent Bodies, and the benefits to parents, their schools and their

children.

Goal 3.3 Parent Net will become a regular monthly Newsletter which is suitable for

distribution to parents and will be informative of CCSP activities and issues.

Goal 3.4 Copies of Parent Net will b sent to the Diocesan Bishop, Director, parish priests

and school principals.

Goal 3.5 In the next phase of its existence CCSP and Diocesan Parent Bodies will initiate an

extended conversation within the Catholic Education sector with a view to arriving

at clarity and shared understandings regarding:

the concept and practice of partnership.

expectations of the desired working relationship between the schools, the

CEO/CSO and Diocesan Parent Bodies.



Goal 4.1 Diocesan Parent Bodies will establish effective methods for relaying information to

school level leaders and for listening to their concerns. Discussions with the

CEO/CSO Director to seek close co-operation will be initiated and wider uses of

email will be investigated.

Goal 4.2 An agreed system will be developed for CCSP to communicate directly with school

based parent groups on issues requiring an urgent response or immediate

dissemination. Appropriate protocols will be agreed between the CCSP and each

Diocesan Parent Body.

Goal 4.3 CCSP will establish email rather than fax communication with all Council members

to accelerate two-way communication. This may mean a computer/modem/printer

purchase plan and a training and support program to assist parents who are

currently unable to use their technology.

Goal 4.4 CCSP Representatives on Committees will prepare an outline of who they are and

what their representation entails. This information will be on the web and

summarised in Parent Net.

vii.

Goal 4.5 CCSP and Diocesan Parent Bodies improve their media liaison and will effectively

explain their perspective on educational issues to the wider community.

Goal 4.6 CCSP and Diocesan Parent Bodies will establish a regular consultative meeting

schedule appropriate to their responsibilities. Groups which may be contacted

formally are Bishops; Diocesan Directors; CEC, NSW; Government and

Opposition Members; etc.

9.0 It is recommended that each Diocesan Parent Body develop its own Strategic Plan to guide

its development from 2000 – 2004. These plans are to include the four priorities and

relevant long-term goals from the Strategic Framework.

10.0 It is recommended that an annual action plan be produced by each Diocesan Parent Body

and CCSP with targets, strategies, deadlines and responsibilities.

11.0 It is recommended that CCSP continues to be a service organisation for Diocesan Parent

Bodies and continues to bring the NSW Catholic parent perspective to the attention of

educational bodies and governments.

12.0 In this Review, a Bishop and an involved parent made these thoughtful, focusing

statements:

WORDS TAKEN FROM

ONE BISHOP’S SUBMISSION

TO THIS REVIEW

We are in the “early days” of the

existence of these bodies established to

foster fulfilment of the role of parents of

Catholic school children, including the right

and need for parents’ voices to be heard and

heeded at every level of the Catholic

Church’s school-education endeavour.

Progress has been made and, please God,

the appropriate path ahead will continue to

be discerned and further sound progress will

be made. There is abundant goodwill: and

whatever the uncertainties, pressures,

reluctances, and the objective difficulties

with “getting it right”, I am confident that

the establishment of parish/school, diocesan

and “State” bodies is a praiseworthy step,

one filled with potential.

WORDS TAKEN FROM

ONE PARENT’S SUBMISSION

TO THIS REVIEW

We must never lose sight

of why we are here.

We have children who we

love and want the best for.

We want them to have a good

education surrounded by

FAITH + HOPE + LOVE.

REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC SCHOOL PARENTS

1.

Part One

HISTORY AND DESIGN OF THE REVIEW

At its meeting on Friday, 7

th November, 1998 the Council of Catholic School Parents (CCSP)

agreed to invite Dr Ross Keane to conduct a review of the Council according to the following

Terms of Reference:

1.0 Terms of Reference of the Review

To examine the development of the Council since June 1995 in terms of the

preamble and purposes as set out in its Interim Constitution.

To identify the current state of the Council with respect to its purposes and to suggest

ways and means by which the individual Diocesan Parent Bodies which comprise the

Council might improve their representation of parents in all Catholic schools in their

respective Dioceses.

To include as part of the Review the operation of the Council’s Secretariat and the

operational procedures adopted by the Council in carrying out its responsibilities.

To undertake the Review under 1, 2 and 3 in consultation with the Council’s

Management Committee.

To prepare for Council a confidential written report on the results of the

recommendation.

1.1 Timeline of the Review

November 7th 1998 Decision to conduct a review of CCSP

December 11th 1998 Ross Keane agrees to conduct the review

March 5th 1999 Review process negotiated by Ross Keane with CCSP members

March – August 1999 Interviews conducted by Ross Keane with selected stakeholders

April 19th 1999 Diocesan Bodies begin collecting and collating data

July 23rd

1999 Date for Diocesan Data to be with the Reviewer

September 17th 1999 Draft report and recommendations considered by CCSP

Nov 25th 1999 Final report presented at CCSP Meeting

1.2.0 Phases of the Review

1.2.1 Phase 1 : Design (November 1998 – March 1999)

Terms of reference were developed and confirmed.

Ross Keane invited to conduct the review.

Ross Keane met with CCSP to:

* identify groups and persons to be consulted.

* decide on methods of consultation.

* establish a timeline data gathering schedule.

REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC SCHOOL PARENTS 2.

Ross Keane finalised surveys and letters of invitation to participants.

1.2.2 Phase 2 : Data Gathering (April – July 1999)

Invitations to be interviewed or surveyed were issued to Bishops and CEO/CSO

Directors.

Surveys were distributed to:

* Past and Present Representatives on Council

* Individuals with parent responsibilities in CEO/CSO

* All members of Diocesan Parent Bodies.

Diocesan Parent Bodies were given responsibility for deciding on data gathering

strategies which involved parent groups at local school level.

Ross Keane interviewed :

* Bishops and CEO/CSO Directors who requested an interview

* Present and past Chairpersons of CCSP

* Bishop Robinson (Chair, CEC, NSW)

* Brian Croke (Executive Director, CEC, NSW)

* Individuals as identified by the CCSP

1.2.3 Phase 3 : Data Analysis and Report : Drafting (July – September 1999)

Diocesan Parent Bodies summarised responses at the Diocesan level and forwarded

summaries to Ross Keane.

Ross Keane prepared data in a standard format.

Ross Keane drafted a report which integrated data from surveys, interviews and

Diocesan Parent Bodies.

CCSP offered feedback and levels of support for the emerging themes and

recommendations presented in the draft report.

1.2.4 Phase 4 : Report Finalisation and Presentation

Ross Keane revised and completed the Report.

Report presented at the November 1999 CCSP meeting.

1.3.0 The Guiding Principle of this Review

At the March 5th

1999 meeting between Ross Keane and the CSSP it was decided that the

Review process would be conducted so as to be a developmental opportunity for CCSP

Representatives and members of Diocesan Parent Bodies. It was not to be conducted as an

objective, outside-driven secretive process.

To achieve this aim:

(a) CCSP Representatives were involved in selecting target audiences and in designing

and developing the consultative instruments.

(b) the Diocesan Parent Bodies decided on appropriate local strategies and target groups

f or consultation in each Diocese (with help from other CCSP Representatives and

models and methods provided by Ross Keane).

(c) Diocesan data was collected and collated by Diocesan Parent Bodies before being

forwarded to Ross Keane.

(d) CCSP Representatives responded to aspects of the draft Review Report by

contributing their reflections on the emerging findings – and by indicating through

noting their levels of support for the emerging themes and recommendations.


1.4.0 Consultations for this Review

1.4.1 Surveys were distributed to the following groups of people with an invitation to respond:

* Bishops and CEO/CSO Directors in each Diocese

* Past and present Representatives on the CCSP from each Diocese

* Current members of Diocesan Parent Bodies in each Diocese.

1.4.2 Each Diocesan Parent Body made its own decision about the form of consultation with

Parent Bodies at local school level within the Diocese. Appropriate resource materials for

surveys were made available by Ross Keane to assist the Diocesan Parent Bodies with this

data gathering task.

1.4.3 Interviews were conducted with:

Dr Richard Parkinson Chairperson, CCSP

Mrs Caroline Benedet Past Chairperson, CCSP

Mr Roger O’Sullivan Executive Officer, CCSP

Mrs Margaret Coker Administrative Assistant, CCSP

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson Chairperson, CEC, NSW

Dr Brian Croke Executive Director, CEC, NSW

Mrs Elisabeth Casamento Commissioner, CEC, NSW

Past President, Archdiocese of Sydney Federation of

Parents & Friends Associations of Catholic Schools

Mrs Grainne Norton Chair, CCSP Planning Committee

Bishop David Walker Bishop, Diocese of Broken Bay

Dr Anne Benjamin Executive Director of Schools, CEO Parramatta

Mr Luke Keighery Chairperson, Diocese of Broken Bay Council of

Catholic School Parents

Mrs Margaret Moriarty Chairperson, Parents Representative Council of

Catholic Schools in the Diocese of Parramatta

Bishop Barry Collins Bishop, Diocese of Wilcannia/Forbes

Mr John Graham School Community Development, Diocese of Lismore

Mr Michael Brady President, P & F, Sts Peter & Paul Primary, Kiama

Mr David York President, NSW Parents Council; Senior VP Australian

Parents Council

Mr Duncan McInnes Executive Officer, NSW Parents Council

1.4.4 Surveys were returned by the following people who are not members of CCSP but

significant partners:

Bishop John Satterthwaite Bishop, Diocese of Lismore

Cardinal Edward Clancy Archbishop, Archdiocese of Sydney

Bishop Michael Malone Bishop, Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle

Bishop Patrick Dougherty Bishop, Diocese of Bathurst

Mr Michael Bowman Director of Schools, CSO Maitland-Newcastle

Mr Rick Johnston Diocesan Director, CEO Armidale

Mrs Denise Phillips Director of Schools, CSO Broken bay

Mr Geoff Joy Director of Education, CEO Canberra/Goulburn

Mr Victor Dunn Director of Education, CEO Wilcannia/Forbes

Br Kelvin Canavan Executive Director of Schools, CEO Sydney

Mr Peter Ryan Director of Education, CEO Lismore


4.

1.5.0 Overview of this Report

The report is being presented in the following six sections or parts:

Part 1 : Recounts the history and design of the Reviews.

Part 2 : Presents a description pf the CCSP as it has evolved in the years 1995 – 1999

(the early days) of its existence.

Part 3 : Provides an edited summary of the achievements and challenges of these early days

from the perspective of members of the various Diocesan Parent Bodies.

Perspectives on both the achievements and challenges of the Diocesan Parent Bodies

and the State body (CCSP) are presented.

Part 4 : Offers the perspective of the Reviewer on the achievements and challenges of CCSP

in these early days. This perspective was developed from a study of survey returns,

personal interviews, CCSP minutes and official documents and from meetings with

CCSP Representatives.

Part 5 : Outlines a way forward for CCSP. It tells the story of the formulation of themes and

draft recommendations. It outlines four priorities and long-term goals.

Part 6 : Presents a four-year plan for the next phase of the development of CCSP.

Diocesan Parent Bodies are to formulate their own strategic and annual plans within

the framework of the recommended priorities and long term goals.


5.

Part Two

CCSP AS IT HAS EVOLVED SO FAR IN THESE EARLY DAYS

This section of the report presents a selected factual description of the current situation in 1999 of

CCSP as it has evolved.

The content of this description has been organised as:

Identity and Membership of CCSP

Purposes of CCSP

Council’s Role

Leadership and Management of Council

Financing of CCSP

Official Representation of the Catholic Parent Voice

2.1.0 Identity and Membership of CCSP

2.1.1 The Council of Catholic School Parents (NSW & ACT) is a private association within the

Church. It is made up of independent and autonomous Diocesan Parent Organisations.

Each is of equal standing and right in the Council. The Bishops reviewed the Council’s

constitution and recognised Council in the Church.

2.1.2 The member organisations are:

Diocese of Armidale School Board’s Association

Diocese of Bathurst Catholic Schools Parents Associations

Diocese of Broken Bay Council of Catholic School Parents

Diocese of Lismore Catholic School Parent Forum

Federation of Parents and Friends Associations for the Diocese of Maitland-

Newcastle

Parents Representative Council of Catholic Schools in the Diocese of Parramatta

Archdiocese of Sydney Federation of Parents and Friends Association of Catholic

Schools

The Parent Committee of the Diocese of Wagga Wagga

Federation of Catholic Parents and Friends Associations of the Diocese of

Wollongong

2.1.3 The Diocese of Wilcannia/Forbes and the Archdiocese of Canberra/Goulburn do not have

diocesan parent organisations. Each nominates a parent who attends meetings of the

Council with the right to vote.


2.1.4 Each Parent Organisation nominated a representative on Council and an alternate

representative. Representatives by Diocese for the period 1995-1999 were:

Armidale 1995-99 Mrs Kerry Biddle

Bathurst 1995-96 Mr Phillip Gilderdale

1996-99 Mrs Anne McLean

Broken Bay 1995 Mr Aidan Cuddington

1996- 97 Mr Brian Hilton

1997-99 Mr Luke Keighery

Lismore 1995-97 Mrs Tricia Bleakley

1997- 98 Mr Laurie Edmonds

1998-99 Mr David Beveridge

Maitland-Newcastle 1995-96 Mrs Dominique Marsh

1996-98 Mrs Christine Tyler

1998 -99 Mrs Susan Macleod

Parramatta 1995-98 Mrs Margaret O’Hearn

1998-98 Mr Greg Cronan

1999 Ms Karen Allen

Sydney 1995-98 Mrs Caroline Benedet

1998-98 Mrs Elisabeth Casamento

1999 Mrs Ruth Correy

Wagga Wagga 1995-99 Dr Richard Parkinson

1998 Mrs Cheryl Hyland

1998-99 Mr Richard Doyle

Wollongong 1995-97 Mr John Kirk

1997 -99 Mrs Tessa Parsons

Canberra-Goulburn 1995-97 Mr John Keeley

1997-99 Mrs Maureen Clancy

Wilcannia-Forbes 1995-98 Mr Peter Harkins

1998-99 Mrs Cate Mitchell

2.2.0 Purposes of CCSP

2.2.1 The principal purpose of CCSP is to provide a forum to represent all parents of students in

Catholic schools.

2.2.2 Other purposes are:

* To affirm the obligation/right of parents to ensure a Catholic education for their

children.

* To promote Catholic education in Catholic schools in partnership with Bishops,

Catholic Education Agencies and other organisations.

* To provide a state level forum for parent participation in all aspects of Catholic

education.

* To promote/foster links between family, school, Church and the community.

* To promote/foster the development of parent organisations and to strengthen

participation of all parents in Catholic schools - in collaboration with Bishops,

Catholic Education Agencies and Catholic schools.


2.3.0 Council’s Roles

On behalf of members, to:

Represent the views of members to Bishops and the CEC, NSW.

Represent views on State-level committees and enquiries on education.

Make submissions to governments on issues pertinent to Catholic Schools.

Respond to governments and other bodies seeking views of Catholic school parents.

Monitor and analyse policies of governments and other groups for impact on

Catholic schools.

Act with Bishops and CEC, NSW to influence governments regarding funding of

Catholic schools.

Promote/foster partnership between parents, teachers, students, administrators,

clergy, wider community.

Provide a state-wide network to disseminate and exchange information among

parents.

Appoint, employ, remove or suspend people as necessary to achieve CCSP purposes.

Publish newsletters, periodicals, books, leaflets or press releases to attain purposes.

Enter appropriate arrangements with government, statutory authorities or educational

bodies.

Register Council as a body corporate.

Liaise in appropriate ways with other organisations in attainment of the purposes.

Do such other things as are conducive to attainment of the purposes of Council.

2.4.0 Leadership and Management of Council

2.4.1 Council elects its Chairperson at the Annual General Meeting.

1995-97 Mrs Caroline Benedet

1998-99 Dr Richard Parkinson

2.4.2 A Management Committee of five members, two city and two country based and the

Chairperson, meets as needed. Its responsibilities are:

to plan and implement the business of the Council.

to act on the Council’s behalf between meetings.

to operate the Secretariat of Council.

to provide safe custody of records and securities of Council.

2.4.3 Council established a Secretariat which consists of a part-time Executive Officer, Roger

O’Sullivan, assisted by a part-time administrative assistant, Margaret Coker from CEC,

NSW.

The Executive Officer is employed 20 hours per week. His hours are often closer to

a full time working week. Margaret averages two days per week with CSSP.

The CEC, NSW provides a work station in Polding House and allows the Secretariat

access to the open files on its computer system. This location enables easy exchange

of views with the Directors of CEC, NSW in person and on internal email.

2.4.4 A good working relationship and ease of communication has developed between the CCSP

and the Association of Catholic School Principals. This occurred, in part, because the

Association of Catholic School Principals has its part-time Secretariat located in Polding

House and Margaret Coker also services it.


2.4.5 Council conducts a minimum of four meetings a year. Features of these meetings are:

Agenda papers distributed in advance. Minutes circulated after meetings by fax or

email.

Agenda items are sought from members but, for the most part, the meeting agendas

have been set by the Chairman in consultation with the Executive Officer.

Funding is provided to cover the cost of attendance of the Alternate Representative in

addition to the nominated Representative for one meeting each year to assist in the

smooth transition of membership.

Council meetings are open for any parent to attend but few parents have used this

opportunity to date.

2.5.0 Financing of CCSP

2.5.1 Nationally CCSP represents about 100,000 families with some 220,000 children enrolled

in 600 Catholic schools across NSW and ACT.

2.5.2 The CCSP Income and Expenditure figures for 1997, 1998, and 1999 were:

Budget 1997

[1.2.97 – 31.1.98]

Actual to 31/01/98

Budget 1998 [1.2.98 – 31.1.99]

Actual to 31/01//98

Budget 1999 [1.2.99 – 31.1.20]

Income

Government Grant 35,070 35,070 36,000 35,070 36,000

Members Fee (20c) 46,960 45,831 (20c) 46,330 36,441 (25c) 58,000

Publications 0 0 0 0 0

Annual Confer. 0 4,000 0 0 0

Interest 2,000 4,740 2,000 3049 2,000

Total Income 84,030 89,641 83,400 74,560 96,000

Expenditure

Executive Officer 33,600 33,534 36,000 34,589 37,000

Office Support 16,800 28,836 22,000 22,065 22,000

Council Meetings 12,600 12,672 14,000 17,725 16,000

Publications 8,000 4,558 8,000 1,390 8,000

Annual Confer. 10,000 9,256 0 0 10,000

Contingencies 3,000 10,524 3,000 3,452 3,000

Total Expenditure 84,000 99,380 83,000 79,221 96,000

Net income

(deficit)

(9,739) (4,661)

Note Income: Outstanding ‘Membership Fees’ 1997 and 1998

Expenditure: Purchase of fax machines as a contingency item in 1997


2.53.1 Comparison : APC Affiliates and CCSP (NSW)

Affiliates of the Australian Parents

Council

No.

affiliated

children

changes

Levy

1999/2000

Govt. Grant

Conditions?

Affiliation

Rate Fee

Paid to APC

(1999)

Estimate of

Total

Operating

Income

S.A. Federation (Catholic) 31,000 $2.50 $10,000

Audited

Statements

70c

$18,575

$87,500

Victorian Parents Council 24,000 $1.30 $30,000

Fee for

Service

Contract

20c

$5,350.00

$61,200

I S P C (N.T.) 4,026 $1.10 $5,175 60c

$3,061.50

$19,603

P & F Fed W.A (Catholic) 49,750

FTE

Increase

expected

$2.00

$2.20

$68,000

Audit &

Activity

Statements

60c

$29,356.25

$167,500

NSW Parents Council 88,255 FTE

No change

$2.40 $35,070

Audit

60c

$39,677.50

$246,882

APFACTS 15,978 $1.00 $21,500

Annual

Statements

60c

$9937.35

$37,478

Tasmanian Federation (Catholic) 12,956 loss

expected due

to

economics

$1.20 $13,750

Audited

Statements

60c

$8,199.70

$29,297

Tas Parents Council of Independent

Schools Inc.

3,742

4300 in 1999

60c $1,100

None

60c

$3,682.50

$3,680

Independent Schools Parents Council

of South Australia

12,500 $1.20 $6,000

None

60c

$7,937.50

$21,000

Fed P & F Assocs. QLD (Catholic) FTE.

70,000

$4.00 $28,000

Audited

A/cs

60c

$41,000.00

$308,000

IPFCQ 23,390 80c $14,000 60c

$14, 199.25

$32,712.00

Budget

CCSP c. 220,000 25c $35,070

Audit

NIL $96,000

2.6.0 Official Representation of the Catholic Parent Voice

2.6.1 Within a short time the CCSP has gained wide recognition as the official representative

voice of Catholic school parents in important educational forums.

It is officially a nominee of non-government school parents on the Board Of Studies.

Non-Government Schools Advisory Committee.

Meets annually with the Minister and Shadow Minister of Education.

Has membership on the Board of Studies Curriculum Committees.


2.6.2 CCSP Representatives on Committees

As at August 1999

Committee Representative

Catholic Education Commission, NSW Elisabeth Casamento

Helen Belcher

NSW Board of Studies [joint with NSWPC] Caroline Benedet

Non-Government Schools Advisory Council Roger O’Sullivan

Minister’s Advisory Council on the Quality of Teaching * Grainne Norton

NSW Department of Transport Appeals Panel Margaret O’Hearn

CEC, NSW Testing & Assessment Advisory Group Susan Macleod

CEC, NSW Vocational Education Advisory Committee Kate Goodacre

NSW Literacy Week Committee Caroline Benedet

Health Promoting Schools Committee Roger O’Sullivan

NSW Full Service Schools Steering Committee Roger O’Sullivan

NSW Civics & Citizenship Benchmark Project Advisory Group Roger O’Sullivan

NSW Access Asia Program Advisory Committee Roger O’Sullivan

NSW Drug Education Program Steering Committee Roger O’Sullivan

Board of Studies Curriculum Committees **

* The Minister terminated this Advisory Council in August ’99 at the time of announcing his

Government’s Review of Teacher Education

** This list excludes representation on the numerous Board of Studies Curriculum Committees

(about 60 Committees) which are being established as part of the HSC Reform.

CCSP nominations to these Committees were underway as at August 1999.


11.

Part Three

ACHIEVEMENTS AND STRUGGLES OF THESE EARLY

DAYS

: THE PERSPECTIVE OF DIOCESAN PARENT

ORGANISATIONS

3.1.0 In this section of the Report the perspectives of the nine independent and

autonomous Diocesan Parent Organisations and the two Diocesan nominated

representatives are presented.

3.1.1 These statements were collated and edited from materials submitted from all

who were consulted from interviews conducted by the reviewer.

3.1.2 The format which is followed generally is :

Background Information

Strengths and Achievements of CCSP (State level)

Strengths and Achievements at the Diocesan level

Concerns

Recommendations

3.1.3 This data from this Report is presented fully in the hope it will assist Diocesan

Parent Bodies in their planning for the future as they continue to work at

“getting it right”.

3.1.4 The recommendations put forward in these various Diocesan statements were

tested for levels of support at the September meeting of the CCSP.


12.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

DIOCESE OF ARMIDALE

SCHOOL BOARDS’ ASSOCIATION


Responses were received from three local level School Boards or P & F’s out of a possible

twenty-seven.

One Board asked a Principal to complete the review form due to its lack of knowledge of CCSP.

Extremely full responses were received from most Executive members.

The Director of the Catholic Schools Office, Mr Rick Johnston, submitted a return and was

interviewed.

The CCSP Representative acknowledged the great support of the School Boards’ Association

Executive and the CSO in their detailed responses to, and distribution of, the survey.

Strengths and Achievements of CCSP (State Level)

The CCSP plays a very important role in representing the parent voice. This has been particularly

beneficial for country schools where, because of distance and size, their concerns did not have such

effective opportunities to be aired before.

Much good work has been done in partnership with the CEC, NSW particularly at election times.

Materials prepared for the Federal and State elections informed parents of the issues and, very

importantly, gave local parent groups the confidence and resources to lobby.

The successful lobbying for category 11 funding and bus subsidies was an obvious benefit to our

schools. Parents have also experienced themselves speaking with an official voice on important

educational issues, e.g. submissions to the HSC Review.

The gatherings of parent representatives from all Dioceses to discuss educational issues have been

valuable learning opportunities for our representatives and members. Consequently parents at local

level are gradually being introduced to ‘big picture” educational issues.

Parent Net is valued as an important information sharing vehicle.

There is a new confidence among many parents that, whatever the outcome, important issues can be

raised and will be taken by spokespersons to appropriate people.

The CCSP took up a number of issues on our behalf, i.e. Citizenship Visits Program, cost of

Benchmark Assessments, access to schooling during natural disasters, legal implications re

fundraising (Bingo). It was very successful with all the issues we presented to it.


Strengths and Achievements of the School Boards’ Association

The well-attended joint Conference and AGM of the School Boards’ Association was good for

awareness raising and liaison between stakeholders in Catholic education.

The AGM and Conferences seem to be able to bring it all back to the local level. Just being able to

‘sit in’ on the AGM’s of the Association and the BCGS is interesting and gives parents a view of

what is happening.

The AGM and Conferences have included local Federal and State politicians. It is great to ask

questions and inform them of issues concerning us. It is good for parents to see they can have a say.

We have excellent guest speakers including Kerrie with her report on CCSP. These are most

informative days.

We produced a Mission Statement and Information Brochure and launched our own web-site which

has links to CSSP, the CSO and CEC, NSW. There is a firm belief in our identity.

Leadership skills have been successfully developed among parents on the Executive.

We have established a workable structure which also facilitates the election of the Diocesan

representative to the CCSP.

Association and cluster newsletters have been successfully produced and distributed. With the

newsletter back in action we are providing better communication with parents. The newsletter not

only includes Board issues but also matters dealt with by the CCSP. It is sent to all P & F bodies.

There have been many visits and presentations to schools and parent bodies. All are invited

personally to cluster meetings and AGM’s.

Council has achieved a great deal in a relatively short amount of time. It has established itself as a

recognised and worthwhile organisation within the Church and is credible with government. It

functions well at State level and in many Dioceses.

It has been good for parents to see that issues which are raised and presented to the Association are

being taken to Council and acted upon, for example:

1997 Bus subsidy issue; Funding teacher salary increases.

1998 Regional School building levy; CCI $500 excess insurance.

1999 Floods affecting schools, especially the Western region.

There is strong liaison with, and support from the CSO. Sr Cath Duxbury has been a driving force

and has been tireless in her efforts.

Our executive members display outstanding commitment and dedication. “ When I saw

Kerrie Biddle speak so articulately, and saw the diagrams and flow charts of where the Council fits

and how parents can be involved an interest was sparked. I was very impressed by her presentation

of the role and purpose of Council and its aim of representing parents at a State level”.

When the Principals did not want it the parents got together and upheld the Association.

The three cluster meetings of our Association (Tablelands, Western and Southern) bring Board

members (parents, principals, staff) together to discuss issues, problems and successes at the local

level, e.g. the Diocesan Fees Policy and issues to be referred to the CSSP. We successfully

achieved changes to CCI Insurance premiums and rebates.


Parents at cluster meetings are truly interested in what CCSP does and even though the issues may

seem beyond most, they at least are starting to feel they are important and can help to make a

difference.

We have successfully increased our promotion of cluster meetings. We amended our Constitution

to include parents at our meetings, leading to more parents being involved and having the

opportunity to provide a more effective two-way communication.

Many of our members joined the School Boards’ Association because of its link to the CCSP and

many feel it is a vital part. The Association would not have the impact it does without its close link

to CCSP.

Concerns

CCSP is doing a great job at State level. Very capable and articulate parents are well able to present

a parent perspective. The question is: How representative of parents can they claim to be when so

many parents in the general school population are not yet aware of the CSSP or what it does?

Responses to consultations with parents are generally limited to a few committed and interested

parents in pockets. It is difficult to get parents even to read communications which are sent to them

let alone to get responses from a wide range of parents.

Parents cannot yet see the importance and benefit to them of Council so we have to keep doing what

we are doing, over and over again. It is the functioning at the School level which still needs a lot of

work.

It is difficult to get enough parents wanting to be involved in “big picture” issues. The demands on

parents in today’s “rush and bustle” society means they have little time or energy left for

involvement in education at this level.

Even some School Boards are closed off and concerned only with their own school and not the

bigger picture.

Unfortunately there is a negative attitude towards the Association from some Principals.

Time and logistical factors pose difficulties to effective responsive communication between the

secretariat and the Diocesan Parent Body. By the time the representative receives information from

the Secretariat, sends it on to executive members and/or schools, waits for a reply and then responds

to the CCSP - the response is often no longer timely.

A good relationship has been established between the Executive and the CCSP via our

representative and the alternative representative. However, it is difficult to get wider relationships

established.

There is a danger that our active, committed and informed parents, who are involved with School

P & F, School Board, the Diocesan Parents Association and CCSP may suffer “burn out”.

CCSP can be slow in following through on decisions. A number of decisions about policy

statements are not yet formulated.


Recommendations for improvement

That CCSP develop a well thought out strategy of promotion and consistency in the

application of that strategy. This strategy is to include strong promotion at “grass roots’ level.

Parents should see and hear, over and over again, what Council and the Diocesan Parent

Bodies have already achieved and what the benefits are to them, their schools and their

children.

That the CCSP Executive Officer be provided with a permanent full-time assistant to help

with such things as:

* publishing Parent Net more regularly.

* updating the Web site.

* assisting representatives to communicate with their Diocesan Parent Associations and

parents.

* issuing monthly updates on Council activities for distribution to representatives.

* chasing up ‘loose ends” with representatives.

That Parent Net becomes a monthly Newsletter which each Diocesan Parent Association

could distribute to its parents. Keeping in contact with them via a Newsletter/Parent Net is

important. This would alleviate concerns representatives have about getting information out

to their constituents.

That copies of Parent Net be sent, as a matter of course, to the Bishop, the Diocesan Director,

Parish Priests, School Principals.

That Parent Net be more informative of CCSP activities, meetings, issues and above all, it be

regular.

That our Diocesan Parents Association persists in its efforts to get through to parents at the

local level with firm open lines of communication at the school level with parents and at the

family level.

That the Diocesan Parents Association puts effort into finding ways of tapping into the natural

interest parents have in local issues and matters they can see directly affect them.

That we organise a schedule of visits by representatives and members of the Diocesan

Executive to local schools and Boards’ Association meetings. This could form part of the

overall CCSP strategy of promotion whereby Council works at in making itself more widely

known.

That our Association investigates ways of generating more interest and participation from

parents within the clusters.

Possible goals for the School Boards’ Association to achieve in the Armidale Diocese over the

next four years are:

(a) a higher profile among our twenty-seven School Boards and P & F Associations through:

greater access to our web-site “Boardlink”.

better readership and distribution of our Newsletter “Boardlink”.

higher attendance at cluster meetings.

(b) Greater respect by our Diocesan Principals for the value of the School Boards’ Association

through:

a system of liaising with the Diocesan Principals Association.

(c) A revitalisation of contact with “CCSP contacts” in each school.


16.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

DIOCESE OF BATHURST

CATHOLIC SCHOOLS PARENTS ASSOCIATION


The Diocese has thirty-five schools ranging from thirty children (nineteen families) to eight

hundred students.

A return was received from Bishop Dougherty.

Returns were submitted by the current Representative and a past Representative.

Returns were submitted with “enthusiasm” from parents associated with fourteen schools.

The Diocesan Parent Education Council considers this to be a very good response. Responses were

collated at a Diocesan Parent Education Council meeting. Responding schools were:

MacKillop College, Bathurst St Mary’s, Dubbo St Joseph’s, Molong

St Joseph’s, Gilgandra St John’s College, Dubbo St Patrick’s, Lithgow

St Columba’s, Yeoval St Matthew’s Central, Mudgee All Hallows, Gulgong

St Joseph’s Manildra St Raphael’s Central, Cowra St Mary’s, Orange

Holy Family, Orange St Joseph’s, Orange.


Parents in NSW now have much valuable material available to them, which, before CCSP, was not

accessible by them.

There is now a forum for parents of NSW to voice their concerns.

We participated in and/or prepared submissions on such important issues as HSC Review, Child

Protection, State and Federal Election Packages, Sing 2000 Choir. Our successes include funding

increases for Catholic systemic schools; bus transport; participation in the HSC Review and

non-government schools being accepted in the Sing 2000 Choir.

Parents are not taking the opportunities to share ideas, activities and to encourage and support each

other across the Dioceses.

It is good to be part of the CEC, NSW - CCSP Seminar. The spiritual dimension is so important

and the opportunity to share within such a community in these settings is very valuable.

It is great that parents in Catholic schools are more recognised and have opportunities to be on

committees, working parties, Board of Studies etc. in both the Catholic and government sectors. It

is good to know our parents now meet with the Minister and Shadow Minister of Education.

Caroline Benedet made an outstanding contribution in the initial years of CCSP - in networking,

encouraging links with appropriate groups, visiting other Dioceses.


Just knowing there is a higher organisation to go to, is very pleasing to parents. Parents are grateful

that survey results are related back to them, generally with a satisfactory result. Parents seem happy

their voice is being heard in various ways.

It is very worthwhile that many speakers are available at CCSP meetings.

The CCSP Secretariat is always obliging and prepared to assist with issues. There have been many

very positive experiences of dealing with the Secretariat over the years.

Strengths and Achievements of Bathurst Catholic School Parents Association

Many achievements are obvious and these are due to the commitment of the members of the

Diocesan Parents Education Council.

Financial support from the CEO for meetings, the AGM, the Conference, secretarial support, travel,

etc. has been important in our successful operation.

Having quality speakers at AGM’s, eg Angela Wood, Brian Croke, CEO Consultants, and parents

having the opportunity to share with other parents from across the Diocese at the AGM has been

significant achievements and sources of strength.

The successful conduct of surveys, eg Extra costs of schooling in the Bathurst Diocese, has been

important.

Good communication networks have been put in place. Our Newsletter, with our logo, designed by

a student in the Diocese in a diocesan competition, has been an important part of our

communication strategy.

We have successfully made information and resources available at the local level. Angela Wood

was an excellent guest speaker at the AGM and subsequently many schools invited her to speak to

students, parents and staff.

There is confusion by parents and staff between CCSP and the NSW Parents’ Council. There was

not enough emphasis on our Catholic school identity, especially in the election campaigns.

CCSP functions effectively at our diocesan level because of the commitment of our representative

who brings excellent summaries of CCSP meetings to diocesan meetings.

Concerns

CCSP - State Level

The lack of opportunity for formation of new representatives. When undertaking this role it takes a

few meeting to familiarise oneself with the workings of CCSP.

Sometimes personal rather than “representative” issues are brought to the fore in discussion.


The need to keep educating parents is often overlooked. The CCSP may have been established for

four years but there is now a new set of parents in the schools. The degree of our discouragement

around the lack of awareness of CCSP need not be as great as it is.

Insufficient dialogue around fixing of dates for meetings, etc.

Position papers are not always completed.

Confusion between non-government schools and Catholic schools in election campaigns.

Parent Net is published irregularly.

Time frames for comments, surveys, nominations etc are not always adequate.

Sometimes distribution of minutes after the meetings is delayed. Also, papers for representatives

who apologise for meetings need to be sent on quickly.

Bathurst Catholic School Parents Association

The role of the diocesan Association is in essence and primarily a diocesan one. I fear that the

CCSP may tend to see the Association as first and foremost a “branch” of the CCSP. Such could

lead to an inversion, at the practical level - and potentially at the concept level - of emphases,

interests, etc.

Unless and until there is widespread and constant “grass-roots” listening and dialogue among

parents of children frequenting Catholic Schools, the power of Association, a fortiori its Council (at

diocesan level) and of Council (at “State level) to speak in the name of all parents is limited ... and

risky.

At the recent Annual General Meeting there were very few parents in attendance and, of these a

notable proportion were teachers.

In the sphere of communication there is some duplication. Some identical material from the

CEC, NSW is being sent by both the Commission and Council/Association.

Many parents at the local school level see CCSP Vs NSWPC.

At times CCSP has dominated discussion and action at our diocesan level because it covers so many

issues. Diocesan issues can be overshadowed.

Our diocesan body sometimes has difficulty disseminating information for parents which is sent via

the CEO. This information does not always get to parents.

When parents are aware of information being sent out and principals are approached, there is

sometimes resistance to handing over some of this information.

Many parents at the local level are still stuck on ‘fund raising” issues and are not able to see the

relevance of supporting the ‘bigger picture’ -even if they are pleased this happens and is attended to

by someone else!

There is not enough communication with the Director and the Bishop.

Some Principals display a negative attitude towards parent participation their children’s education.



That summary notes of CCSP speakers input be made available to all parents, or to

representatives to distribute to their Associations.

That CCSP makes a video which attaches faces to the CCSP name. Parents may respond

better and be more inclined to do so.

That we ensure our voice and our identity are clearly distinguished from those of other non-

government schools at election times, and on other occasions. Our representations must be

clearly perceived as coming from parents of students in Catholic schools.

That position papers that have already been developed need to be finalised/adopted and the

other issues addressed. This eliminates the need for what is perceived as a ‘personal

comment’ on various issues.

That at the diocesan level we keep CCSP issues relevant to our own area to allow local issues

to be brought forward and adequately addresses.

That CCSP makes greater use of email and various technological forms of “hook ups”.

That training support be provided for those representatives and members of local executives

who are not computer literate and who find the prospect of learning to use the computer and

email to be “very scary”.

That structures be developed to provide formal, regular communication and dialogue with the

Director of the CEO and the Bishop.

That we educate parents to take on representative roles. Provide some formation, advertising,

etc.

That we develop ways of encouraging parents in schools where principals or staff only see

P & F’s as fund raising bodies.

That we constantly focus on educating parents re the functions of the diocesan and state

bodies. At the same time we must keep perspective by realising there are new parents to be

reached all the time.

On ‘big issues’ or ‘ issues requiring a quick response’ send surveys directly to the local school

based parent groups - eg P & F or School Board. This would be supported by our Diocesan

Parent Education Council.

Send information directly to the P & F Associations. It would reach more parents this way

Continue representation on as many Committees and bodies as possible. Have all these

representatives distribute an outline of who they are and what their representation entails.

This could also be part of Parent Net.

Concentrate on improving media liaison to explain issues to the media and general public, eg

Funding concerns. Perhaps delegate media liaison to a specific person. Target the Catholic

press at state and diocesan levels - this may strengthen the “Who we are” and “What are we

doing” aspects.

Find ways of affirming and encouraging those parents whose great commitment, efforts and

staying power in the face of family, occupation and other volunteer work, enable us to achieve

so much.


20.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

DIOCESE OF BROKEN BAY

COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC SCHOOL PARENTS


Bishop David Walker was interviewed.

A return was submitted by Mrs Denise Phillips, the Director of the Catholic Schools Office.

Mr Luke Keighery, Chairperson of the Broken Bay Council of Catholic School Parents was

interviewed.


The energy, dedication and commitment of those on the Secretariat and the Management

Committee has kept the momentum of CCSP going.

Great inroads have been made in achieving a voice for parents in the decision-making processes of

those with whom we share the education of our children.

Parents in Catholic schools now know they have a body which gives them a political voice.

Council has moved a long way along its winding road in a short time.

CCSP Secretariat staff are responsive, helpful and enthusiastic.

Strengths and Achievements of the Diocesan Level

There is now increased communication between parents and central administration bodies.

Many parents can see CCSP has made constructive in contributions on behalf of parents.

Forums to address major issues of concern by parents (e.g. special needs) have been well attended.

Parents play a significant role on the diocesan School Board and its Committees and have been

invited to represent parents on the diocesan Finance Board.

Our diocesan CCSP checked with the Catholic Schools Office to ensure appropriate procedures had

been followed in a difficult school issue where many parents were expressing concern.

Communication between CCSP and local parent organisations has been open and beneficial.


Concerns

CCSP - State Level

We have not yet found an effective way of communicating all the ground we have made to the

wider parent body.

The biggest challenge is that there will always be a bit of Thomas in both our parents and partners -

unless they see results they don’t believe the work!!!

At the moment there are too few parents involved in the state and diocesan work of CCSP and they

are over extended in their work as representatives of parents at all levels.

Many parents have an expectation that CCSP will be their voice and not just another arm of the

Catholic Schools Office. CCSP should be aware of this at all levels. We have a commitment to

work in partnership with schools - but an obligation to represent the views of parents.


That leadership development for the Parent Council be focused on parents at the local level -

those involved in School Boards, parent bodies or regional representatives. We can’t afford to

develop parents at state, diocesan and regional levels and leave the grass roots to fend for

themselves. This is where most work is needed.

That we co-operate with CEO’s to develop teams to work specifically in training P & F’s or

School Boards. If possible this work should involve the parent body and principal working

together. The focus should be on skills, strategies and outcomes with both the local and wider

picture in view.

That CCSP and the CEC, NSW jointly conduct a workshop on the issue of finding ways to

reach and involve parents by touching them where their concerns are - locally.

That events/seminars be timetabled across a variety of locations and times to ensure all

parents have access.

That there be better use of the Internet for ongoing dissemination of information and

feedback.

That there be a more structured handover at the Diocesan level from one Executive to the next

to ensure coherence and maintenance of momentum.

That the parent organisation promotes the positive achievements delivered by governments or

other Catholic Agencies.


22.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

ARCHDIOCESE OF CANBERRA/GOULBURN

( NOMINATED REPRESENTATIVE - instead of a Parent Body )


This Archdiocesan education system deals with both NSW and ACT governments, education

agencies/bodies and their requirements. There are 12,217 students in the ACT schools and 5,852 in

the NSW schools.

There is no Archdiocesan parent body. The Archdiocese has been represented at CCSP meetings

since its establishment by a nominated parent representative. The first representative, John Keeley

was from ACT followed by Maureen Clancy from Goulburn.

The Catholic Education Office pays the annual membership fee for students in the NSW sector of

the Archdiocese.

A return was submitted by the current nominated Representative.

A return was received from the Parent Participation Officer of the CEO.

A return was received from Mr Groff Joy, the Director of the Catholic Education Office.

The Representative (Maureen) decided it was not appropriate at this time to survey each P & F body

separately. She did this because there is no Archdiocesan Parent body and she felt that parents at

the local level may have little working knowledge of the CCSP.

Maureen informally surveyed participants at a Parent Conference in Canberra which had 110

participants representing many school communities and parishes throughout the Archdiocese. In

particular Presidents of P & F’s and Chairpersons of Boards had been invited to attend. She

submitted her findings from this informal survey.


CCSP provides a forum for representatives of the 11 Dioceses to meet, share ideas, discuss

educational issues and lobby government for increased funding.

CCSP has linked dioceses and fostered the “sharing of wisdom” between parent bodies across

different dioceses.

CCSP has enabled parents to become more involved in, and informed of, ‘big’ issues facing

education.

CCSP conveys a Catholic schools parental perspective on educational issues directly to the Minister

for Education and the Shadow Minister for Education (NSW) and other agencies

It has provided a voice for parents on the ‘big’ issues and a vehicle to organise regular meetings

with significant players in education.

The election packages provided excellent resources to local parent bodies.


The CCSP has been well served by its Secretariat.

Strengths and Achievements of the Archdiocesan Level

The nominated representative, in that role, was included on the selection panel for a Parent

Participation Officer in the CEO.

The nominated Representative toured the Archdiocese with members of the CEO and CEC, ACT at

the end of 1997 to raise the profile of CCSP and to introduce herself to parents throughout the NSW

sector of the Archdiocese.

Maureen has been an excellent representative for the Archdiocese. She distributed a letter

following each meeting of the CCSP to important stakeholders in the NSW sector of the Diocese.

Key stakeholders contacted regularly in this way were: Parish Priests (NSW with schools);

Principals; School Board Chairpersons and Parents and Friends Association Presidents (NSW

Congregational & Archdiocesan). She communicated information from the CCSP meeting and

invited comments for inclusion in submissions to inquiries. She referred readers to Parent Net.

Concerns

CCSP - State Level

There needs to be a clearer definition of representation. Is each member of CCSP given a mandate

from the diocesan body? It not, the time delay in being presented with an issue, consultation with

the diocesan Parent Body and subsequent formulation of a point of view often reduces the

immediate response and impact on the issue.

We need to speed up the response time for many issues.

How representative is representative - if only a few people are coming forward from the school P &

F bodies to form the Diocesan body?

Many issues eg elections, buses, and submissions to government bodies are usually referred from

CCSP to the CEC, NSW to give an overall view. While on the CCSP I was concerned by our

reliance on what the CEC, NSW thought and how it was responding before we formulated or

presented our view. We constantly checked where we were in line with the CEC, NSW. While I

believe that relationship should be nurtured, I think we need to be more independent. Our links

with CEC, NSW at times seem to minimise our autonomy.

Duplication: often information was faxed, then posted then appeared in meeting papers.

Archdiocesan Level

Canberra Goulburn Archdiocese has no parent body. It would appear, given geographical size and

cultural diversity, that the formation of an Archdiocesan parent body will be very difficult.


Our NSW schools stretch from Eden in the south to Lake Cargelligo in the north west. This is an

enormous area for any one representative to cover without the support of a parent body to assist in

communication.

The role of being the representative for the whole Archdiocese is an enormous task for one parent.

The problems of distance and time inhibit parents from becoming involved. Time distance and

support are major problems in the Archdiocese for the parent representative.

Communication is difficult. It would appear personal contact is the only effective means available.

Is it ethical to expect a parent, who has other commitments, to give as much time as would be

required?

Our representatives each found it difficult to represent the parents of our Archdiocese when their

personal experience had been limited to one sector of it, i.e. NSW or ACT.

At this time it has been considered prudent by the CEO to leave the ACT sector out because of

continuing clashes of interest between CCSP and APFACTS.

As CCSP has developed it has become apparent it is mainly relevant to our NSW sector.

Better communication is needed. There is a perception amongst the parents that the issues are too

big, that “they” make the decisions and “they” are far removed from the local level.

Many from the NSW sector indicated that the hardship being experienced within rural communities

make it difficult for them to give time and energy to another parent body.


That alternative forms of meetings and communication - such as email, video and

tele-conferencing should be encouraged and funded. Technology must be used better.

That if our parents do establish a parent body it should be one for all parents in the

Archdiocese, not two (not one for NSW and one for ACT). This would have implications for

how the parent body would deal with matters arising from CCSP business.

That executive summaries of large documents be prepared and circulated. These should state

the key issues and references and name possible implications for Catholic school parents.

That there be regional meetings of parent groups and an occasional Archdiocesan gathering of

parents to develop a feeling of belonging other than at the school level.

That other parents be identified and asked to become involved at Archdiocesan level with the

nominated Representative so they can more easily be nominated as Archdiocesan

Representative.


25.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

DIOCESE OF LISMORE

CATHOLIC SCHOOL PARENT FORUM


A response was received from Bishop Satterthwaite.

A response was received from Mr Peter Ryan, Director of the Catholic Education Office.

A written submission was received from Mr John Graham from the Catholic Education Office.


Major successes have been

Official status representing non-government school parents on the Board of Studies.

Development of a Council strategy at the State and Federal elections.

Increase in the level of funding for Catholic schools at the Federal election.

Development of a Council position on Child Protection.

On-going development of Council policy on drug education and drug abuse.

The Catholic School Parent Forum is active in the Diocese and doing good work in parent education

and involvement in education.

Strengths and Achievements of Lismore Catholic School Parent Forum

The Parent Forum model has provided a wide range of options for parents. It has provided

opportunities for adult education and has involved parents at levels far more significant than

canteen and working bee involvement.

Concerns

CCSP - State Level

Major concerns about communication are:

Parent Net information is still not getting to parents

The low contribution rate from parents to the Parent Net publication

Not enough information broadcast to the wider community about the Web site.

The CCSP, without a Research Officer of its own, relies too heavily on the CEC, NSW.

The CCSP still seems uncertain of its role (politically) relative to the CEC, NSW and CEO’s.


It is hard for the CCSP be seen as independent when its members know little about the issues and

rely so heavily on the CEC, NSW for information.

CCSP remains unknown to most, if not all, those surveyed. It is difficult to provide information

about the role/functions to parents with no prior knowledge of CCSP.

CCSP is not perceived to be relevant to the issues and needs of parents at the average parish school

level. The CCSP has effectively offered nothing to our Diocese - and even in the election time its

activity was more of a frustration than a help when a number of parents in our Diocese felt

manipulated.

The monies available to CCSP are insufficient to run a strong organisation.

Diocesan Level

There has been only low levels of parent response in our diocese to workshops.

There has been only limited transfer of information in this diocese. Many publications and videos

remain within the hands of previous CCSP representatives and have not generally been available to

the wider Lismore parent body.

Individual dioceses, including Lismore, do not have the resources to keep alive a vision of effective

communication, grass roots parental involvement, networking and education.

There is a high level of CEO support for parents within this diocese - the Parent Forum even seems

over reliant on work done by one person employed by the CEO.

Parent forum has limited contact with, and access to, secondary schools.

Many parents in this Diocese have little knowledge of the existence of CCSP. The role and

functions of CCSP are not recognised at a local level, nor is information getting down to the level of

local parent bodies.

Most school parent bodies are concerned primarily (only) with their local issues.


That we establish regular scheduled interchanges and discussions between the Parent Forum

and senior CEO personnel.

That we initiate discussions with the CEO Director re the best practice of disseminating

information throughout the Diocese.

That we clarify the working relationship with the CEC, NSW and CEO’s.

That CCSP develops a strategy of formation of Diocesan Directors and Bishops which will

enable them to better appreciate the work of CCSP and to engage in partnership with it.

That we raise the public profile of the role, functions and activities of CCSP through

newspapers and the media, especially through the Catholic press.


That for purposes of dissemination of information around the Diocese some of it be packaged

in the form of 30 second grabs.

That CCSP finds ways of reducing the voluminous amount of reading material which is

distributed.

That we explore the wider use of email, either personal or through school parent bodies.

That to maintain a strong level of vitality we devise further ways of effectively resourcing

parent organisations at diocesan and State level.

That CCSP should take up the MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment

and Training and Youth Affairs) statement of Agreed National Goals for Schooling and take

the lead in helping the Catholic education sector work towards a consensus understanding of

that section of the preamble which states “ It (this statement) also acknowledges the role of

parents as the first educators of their children and the central role of parents in the learning

process”.

That Parent Forum find ways of engaging becoming active with parents of students in

secondary schools.

That CCSP develops a stronger paid resource support base. It needs at least one full time

person with personal secretarial support. This person requires vision, skill and energy and

should be given a mandate to work up the base of the CCSP across the dioceses.


28.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

DIOCESE OF MAITLAND-NEWCASTLE

FEDERATION OF PARENTS AND FRIENDS ASSOCIATIONS


In all some fifteen (15) responses were returned. These provided a sampling of various types of

school communities in the Diocese: Secondary/Primary, Urban/Rural, well

resourced/disadvantaged, high income (census area)/low income etc. Each question records the

sample of responses and percentages of respondents who expressed views in response to the

questions.

Bishop Michael Malone responded to the survey.

Mr Michael Bowman, Director of the Catholic Education Office, responded to the survey.


Extremely effective in lobbying relevant State and Commonwealth bodies.

Excellent forum for parent involvement in Catholic education.

Developed significant links with all sectors of Catholic education community.

The establishment of CCSP as the voice of Catholic parents.

The establishment of two “new” parent member groups (Broken Bay, Lismore).

The transport campaign.

Links with Catholic community in the state.

Submissions to government on many issues of importance.

I admire the generous commitment of members. Their numbers are small and their task great.

Genuine partnership in Catholic school education still has a way to go. CCSP can greatly assist a

better integration of all system-users.

Co-operation and initiatives on behalf of parent member groups.

Distribution of minutes from the Secretariat.

Distribution of information on both education “Catholic issues” – articles more particularly

appreciated.

Availability of the Secretariat – the phone was always answered by someone.


Strength: the goodwill from the “Catholic organisation” in assisting the CCSP in its establishment.

Strength: The interest of the Parents Representatives in the activities of other Dioceses – no-one

seems to be “pushing their own barrow” or competing for the limelight.

Achievement: Surviving, and being recognised by the NSW Government as a voice” who is now

included in the consultation process.

The success of CCSP to date owes a lot to dedication of parents.

I feel that the CCSP has made a good attempt to establish itself as the body representing Catholic

parents and has been a credit to the activities of a few dedicated volunteers. It is difficult working

to involve parents, especially those who see a limited role for parent participation.

Strengths and Achievements of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle Federation of Parents and

Friends Associations

Our parent organisation works well. It is highly co-ordinated and effective.

Strong link between CEC, NSW; Dioceses; and Parent Organisation.

Emphasis on essential partnership in education of parents working closely with Schools Officer and

schools.

Advocacy re government policies.

Efforts to keep parents well informed on educational issues.

From my experience it works very effectively and supports education in this Diocese very well.

Concerns

CCSP - State Level

The Secretariat is vital to the ongoing function of the CCSP – a “volunteer” President and

Management Committee rely very heavily on the service.

Attempts to “communicate” with 61 schools and parent bodies on local issues is hard enough, but to

do the same with “smaller” state issues is almost impossible.

Time expectations (for responses) are sometimes unrealistic.

My impression is that the CCSP is still only known to those involved and our Diocesan Executive.

I don’t see this as a major problem – few parents know of the CEC, NSW either! Our Executive are

informed and they have the authority of the Parent Body to act.

The time the President has had to spend “being available” so that the CCSP could establish a

presence, e.g. Caroline Benedet’s work – this would not have been possible without a sympathetic

employer.


The cost to CCSP reps (willingly borne) who leave work/business to represent the CCSP. This may

narrow down to range of parents available to those employed by the Catholic Schools Offices (who

will give paid leave).

Insufficient attention to the “Catholicity” of our schools.

Ready acceptance of the Catholic school as an alternate to state system.

More attention to the content of RE curriculum.

More support for Schools Boards’ efforts to develop strong links and partnership in education.

A more proactive stance is required.

The level of expectation of CCSP reps on committees and the level of support overlooked in return.

Parent perspective still an afterthought in the eyes of bodies with which CCSP seeks to work.

Educational issues arise all the time and require a considered response from CCSP and other ACT s.

As such the response is often “ad hoc”.

Part-time structure is not sufficient to support activities of the CCSP. It has also meant that the

Executive Officer has given over and above what could normally be expected of such an employee.

Over-reliance of members on Secretariat.

Diocesan Level

At present the organisation is trying to establish itself after a period of instability and drift.

Our Diocesan Parent Organisation functions reasonably well. We still encounter an

”us and them” mentatility from time to time.

Parents have every right to express opinions about educational issues. They sometimes fail to

represent their views in a well presented/researched way. Too often a response is angry or strident.

Parent representation at the School Board is not used as well as it should.

Adequate time to liaise with people is always going to be a problem.


That we accept most issues will not get to a wide range/number of parents and we

acknowledge that decisions/opinions/directions will come from Diocesan Executive

Committees who have been elected to represent “their Parents” (ours has 13 members elected

at the AGM).

That a more organised way of seeking representatives of committees be established.

A register of names and interests is a good idea. Each Diocese could, in turn, be expected to

supply candidates.


That staffing and performance review of the Secretariat be given a high priority.

That we establish a strong liaison between the CCSP Executive Officer and our local “Parent

Officers” to ensure the local Executive is informed and issues don’t “come out of the blue”

and always have to be addressed in a hurry.

That Questionnaires or response forms be supplied when feedback is needed.

That we work at creating greater involvement of parent members in the work of CCSP.

That we drive the agendas rather than just respond.

We need organised discussion with bodies such as CEC, NSW altering them to the legitimate

voice of CCSP.

That we develop strategies to ensure parents who nominate for Committees are known to

voting members of bodies e.g. the present arrangement for nomination to CEC, NSW

Committees can result in a decreased parent voice when nominations are received but they

don’t get the vote.

That the position of Executive Officer be made a full time position.

That we establish a sub-committee or working party to progress meaty/substantial issues

which underpin the educational conversation.


32.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

DIOCESE OF PARRAMATTA

PARENTS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS


Summary response received from surveys

An individual response was received

The Director of the CEO, Dr Anne Benjamin, was interviewed.


There is strong commitment to children’s issues, eg child protection, Children’s Commission, input

to HSC changes.

Our lobbying resulted in the change to Category 11 funding.

We have raised the awareness of the “bigger picture” for many parents.

Opportunities to meet with high-ranking government ministers, eg Minister of Education

The CCSP Secretariat has been highly efficient.

Parents are pleased to receive important information whatever the source of the provider.


The election strategies were highly successful and well directed. The co-ordination with CEC,

NSW was excellent, the campaign issues were targeted and appropriate, and information to schools

was focused.

The CEO provides resources at the local level and the presence of Margaret O’Hearn in the office

gives an important flow back of information.

Concerns

CCSP - State Level

There is no regular newsletter going to all parents.

Most parents are not concerned with the bigger picture - more with local issues.


It is hard to provide the continuity of representatives and new ones need to learn how to be

effective.

Such a huge amount of paper is generated that it is unlikely everything is read and taken in.

Diocesan Level

There has been such little contact between CCSP representatives and the Director.

What are the implications of CEO resourcing? Is there a risk that parents who give voluntary

involvement will become disempowered and the paid person who has the time, knowledge and

CEO base will gradually become the defacto PRC?


That we strengthen the connection between CCSP, our Representative Council and school

parent bodies.

That we find more effective ways to relay information to school parent group leaders -

without these representatives we will lose our network to contact parents.

That CCSP investigates alternatives to paper: - email may be the way to go.


34.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY

FEDERATION OF PARENTS’ AND FRIENDS’ ASSOCIATIONS


Phone interviews were conducted with Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, Elizabeth Casamento and

Caroline Benedet.

Surveys returned by the nominated representatives

Surveys were returned by Cardinal Clancy and the Executive Director of Catholic Education,

Br Kelvin Canavan.


Governments, State and Commonwealth, and the Catholic Church, now accept CCSP as the

representative body for parents. CCSP now provides parents in Catholic schools with the

opportunity to have real impact on important issues affecting Catholic schools.

The establishment of CCSP facilitated the development of new Diocesan Parent Bodies, eg Broken

Bay and Lismore parent organisations.

CCSP has facilitated the spread of knowledge of various types of parent bodies within the State and

has opened the way for more communication and exchange of ideas.

Disparate parent groups have been united in the promotion of Catholic schooling in NSW.

CCSP has achieved ongoing links and credibility with Educational agencies within and outside the

Catholic arena. Parents are now represented on the NSW Board of Studies.

CCSP was effective in campaigns re Level 11 funding and school transportation.

It has provided a focus for school parents which is beyond the role of raising funds.

CCSP has been a valuable boost to parent morale.

The organisation of seminars, speakers and accommodation has always been good.

Strengths and Achievements of the Archdiocesan Level

Two parent election packages were used successfully at local school level. However, this strategy

only worked because of the support and directives of the Executive Director.

The Federation provides information and help to local P & F’s through the newsletter and regional

meetings. It also proves a venue and forum for parents.


The Federation provides opportunities for an individual parent to become knowledgeable about

educational issues.

Concerns

CCSP - State Level

Some respondents consider that, other than at the State election, the CCSP has had little impact in

1999.

How will CCSP keep the momentum arising from achievements such as capital funding, Level 11

funding, school transport campaigns, alive and strong?

In many issues (eg the “bashing” of private schools over the recent Federal budget increases to

private schools) the structures of CCSP have not proved adequate to allow for a quick response to

the media. No spokesperson was in evidence to present our parental perspective on funding

increases which were attacked in the media by other interest groups.

CCSP is hamstrung by its current methods of operation. Four meetings per year would be fine if

they were spent only developing policy which was to be implemented by the Secretariat. Currently

the four meetings are primarily used to absorb information while the Secretariat is left to make

decisions without policy parameters in place.

The CCSP gets bogged down with paper. Without a management program it cannot be effective.

Decisions need to be made quickly, sometimes daily. Three-monthly meetings are next to useless if

there is no structure in place to allow quick decisions.

It does not seem appropriate for dioceses without a democratically elected parent body to have full

rights of participation in CCSP meetings. They could be observers.

Both the CCSP and diocesan parent bodies struggle to contend with all the problems of voluntary

run organisations which have Executive Officers who have limited authority.

CCSP is often called to address a vast range of issues and to find nominees for Committees and

working groups. There is frequent reliance on Sydney to provide nominees, often at short notice.

The present staffing/structure/resourcing of Council is not functional. One part-time Executive

Officer serving a volunteer Council which has very limited time to address a vast array of issues

and topics provides an almost impossible challenge.

The name CCSP confuses some people because it is similar to the NSW Parent’s Council.

The cultural diversity of parents in Catholic schools is not adequately reflected in the composition

of the representatives to CCSP.

The boundaries for the involvement of the Secretariat are not clearly defined. Its mandate appears

to be too open-ended considering the restrictions at the school level.


The distribution of paper work and information is too inconsistent. This makes it hard for

representatives to allow adequate time, particularly if there is a poor response from other diocesan

bodies for information or opinion.

A lack of clear procedures between the Secretariat and diocesan bodies has resulted in a failure to

develop a consistent relationship with each other.

Diocesan Level

The perception of some members of the Federation is that the CCSP is not “ours” but is owned by

the Bishops.

Grass roots P & F’s know very little about the existence and role of CCSP.

Sydney representatives can be overloaded with information after CCSP meetings - hence little

emerges in a clear focused way at Archdiocesan level.

The Federation is perceived by some to be overly representative of the interests of Congregational

Schools.

There seems to be a lack of direction and purpose within the Federation.

Representatives do not always feel confident they are accurately voicing parent opinion.

At school level there is usually inadequate active encouragement for parents to become involved in

the wider issues of education.

Communication structures between school P & F’s and the Federation are not adequate.

Parent groups do not know how to enthuse and encourage individuals to participate.

Executives of local parent groups often lack expertise in organisation and management.

The level of support (i.e. facilities, staff assistance, secretarial support) provided to assist parent

groups at the school level is often inadequate to the need.

Principals can feel threatened and challenged by informed parents. Parents are often seen as a

threat by Principals and Diocesan Schools Offices and thus needing ‘to be managed”.

The CEO parent opinion survey conclusion indicates a very narrow role for parents in their

children’s education.

The breadth of cultural diversity of parents in Catholic schools is nowhere near adequately reflected

in the composition of the representatives to the Federation and CCSP.


That we more actively encourage cultural diversity in our membership at CCSP and

Federation levels.


That members of the Sydney Federation find ways to develop a stronger sense of ownership

of, and identification with CCSP.

That CCSP streamlines its communication by providing more frequent, direct information to

diocesan bodies in a simple regular format, eg newssheet or report.

That Representatives be supported by relevant papers and information being sent directly to

facilitate information sharing. Updates on important issues to be provided at least monthly.

That CCSP develop automatic regular procedures rather than not sporadic or occasional

responses, e.g. registers of interested parents who can be asked to act as nominees for

committees or focus groups be updated according to a regular schedule.

That CCSP assists member organisations or representatives to respond to consultation

requests by developing pro-forma sheets which will facilitate replies.

That agenda items be circulated well before meetings of CCSP to enable representatives to

consult with their diocesan organisations and members.


38.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

WAGGA WAGGA DIOCESE PARENT COMMITTEE


Responses received from 4 out of 12 members of the Executive of the Wagga Wagga Diocesan

Parent Committee.

Dr Richard Parkinson was interviewed and returned a survey.


We have established good linkages of parent representatives across the Dioceses with has led to

better understanding of the various local problems, achievements and failures. There has been

intense mutual support and cross fertilisation of ideas.

We have achieved political recognition that there is a coordinated parent voice from Catholic

schools and that parents can be mobilised to demonstrate their feelings and expectations. This,

however, takes at least four to five weeks to achieve movement.

There is now reliable parent input into the CEC, NSW and via this, supported parent input into

diocesan educational decision making.

Parent representatives now have better knowledge of the educational issues and realities of non-

government school management. Also, at least theoretically, we have a mechanism to pass this

knowledge down to the mass of parents in schools.

We have achieved functioning linkages with the CEC, NSW and its officers thorough our

Secretariat.

Our two parent Commissioners now relate, pre and post CEC, NSW meetings, with the Executive

Officer and the CCSP Chairman if he is available. Important information is freely exchanged

through this structure.

Members of Council have achieved a close continuing knowledge of educational bureaucratic

thinking and behaviours in CEC, NSW and state and federal government environments. The

business papers reflect this.

There is wide recognised representation of CCSP in meetings, committees, launches etc.

The Secretariat and Management Committee efficiently provide the executive function and

continuity of effort on behalf of Council and its Chairman between meetings.

The Secretariat has been excellent in providing information to representatives. In this diocese we

have then fed this information out from the WWDPC via our secretaries.


Strengths and Achievements of Wagga Wagga Diocesan Parent Committee

We successfully amended our Constitution to provide for continuity.

We have always had someone from WWDPC at CCSP meetings to give our schools a voice. We

have had a strong direct voice to CCSP from our diocesan representative.

We value our links with CCSP and communication with other parent bodies. CCSP meetings

provide opportunities to discuss concerns and get advice, inspiration and information to take back to

our diocese for local use.

We were well assisted to lobby politicians in all local electorates in two recent elections. A

successful communication chain was developed for use at election times with direct mail and fax to

P & F’s, and a separate CEC, NSW mail-out. These strategies were supportive.

Regular quarterly meetings, moving around the Diocese, give all parents (not just Catholics) in our

schools the opportunity to have a voice and be represented. This rotation of venues has given

WWDPC members the opportunity to appreciate the diocesan problems - isolations, distance and

local issues.

We are now recognised by other groups in the Diocese - Bishop, DCEO, Principals.

We have successfully demonstrated an ability to voice our differences and to get a positive

resolution from discussions, e.g. to involve non-Catholic parents; to express anger at DCEO

expenses while teacher numbers were forced to fall to balance the budget. Parent anger brought

about huge change. We worked together on elections campaigns with clear, uniform information.

Concerns

CCSP - State Level

Our constituency, parents of children in Catholic schools, is not currently clearly appreciated by

federal and state governments and political parties. CCSP is often seen as covering rich

independent schools - which is closer to the reality of the NSW Parents’ Council.

Our greatest problem is the much better marketing by the NSW Parent Council of its ideas and

policies to P & F’s who are not its members any more but are still potential subscribers.

Government sees the NSWPC as representing “all non-government schools” (which it claims to do)

and thus Catholic schools run the risk of being identified with the “rich and private”, the same as

the majority of NSWPC membership.

Support by Diocesan Education Offices and Principals is unreliable. CCSP is sometimes seen as

parent “intrusion” and sometimes as “a lackey of the Bishops”. Partnership and cooperative effort

are not well understood or are not based on a set of shared assumptions.

Communication through diocesan parent bodies to their constituencies is not good and many

parents do not know of CCSP activities.

Communication of issues to parents at school level is a particular difficulty. The volume of

information coming from CCSP is large and it is hard to condense and ‘translate’.


Parent Net appears irregularly. It is not being fully utilised as a regular, informative, multi-issue

content communication mechanism.

Our diocese has only one voice among many. Regional, rural or local issues may get lost in the

bigger urban issues which have greater commonality of interest.

CCSP does not visit rural centres.

Wagga Wagga Diocesan Parent Committee

Much healing has yet to occur following a divisive diocesan debate which continued for two years.

The Bishop was slow in agreeing to majority votes at two AGM’s to remove the criterion of

Catholic for delegates to the AGM. The Bishop eventually approved of the word being removed

but much damage was done.

Some parents and schools really support us but the majority of parents and P & F’s, can’t or won’t

get involved. They are enthusiastic about the concept but don’t want to act.

Information which is sent out by WWDPC and CCSP is not getting through to parents. This is due

to reliance on written material being sent through the system and through principals; and because of

lack of regular meetings and contact with school P & F’s.


That CCSP strive to be more public about its identity and constituency. That it be seen to be

representing Catholic schools, not non-government schools, and to push this by action.

That we become more proactive in encouraging and educating diocesan authorities to adopt

more authentic partnership relationships with parents. The Church’s tradition of paternalism

and controlling behaviours is one of the factors inhibiting parent involvement.

That the CCSP Executive Officer becomes more personally involved with Diocesan Parent

Bodies and their Executives to assist them more directly.

That ways be investigated to provide more encouragement for parents to become involved at

school level. While Principals are the ones best placed to do this, a number of them seem to

prefer compliant non-intervention from parents.

That we support greater personal involvement by the CCSP Executive in encouraging

Diocesan Parent Bodies to become a true conduit of parent ideas. This may mean regular

visits to meet with them or video/teleconferencing links in lieu of travel. Income to CCSP

would need to rise to allow this to happen.

That we re-establish a regular consultative meeting schedule which includes Bishops;

Diocesan Directors; CEC, NSW; Government Ministers etc. CCSP then reports to parents at

school level by newsletter or email. This is one means of promoting visibility of Council and

correcting misperceptions at political levels about the true constituency of CCSP, i.e. it

represents Catholic schools, not rich, independent schools.


That representatives and the Secretariat visit one or two rural centres to see first hand what

these parents are facing.

That efforts be made to strengthen the links between the Diocesan Parent Bodies and the

Executive Officer. Make the Executive Officer available to assist local Parent Bodies as they

strive to become more effective, more truly representative of parent views, and to discern

directions for growth.

That we establish email, rather than fax, communication with all Council members to

accelerate two-way communication. This may mean a computer/modem/printer purchase

plan and a training program to assist parents who are currently unable to use this technology.


42.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

DIOCESE OF WILCANNIA/FORBES ( NOMINATED REPRESENTATIVE - instead of a Parent Body)


An interview was conducted with Bishop Barry Collins.

A return was submitted by Mr Victor Dunn, Director of the Catholic Education Office.

Surveys were returned by the nominated representative.


Excellent communication channels have been established by Roger O’Sullivan.

Meetings and workshops have been efficiently organised -with good dissemination of material for

perusal and comment.

We have good representation at the myriad of meetings, functions, etc where required.

Catholic parents are now recognised by the State, and increasingly by Federal authorities. CCSP is

now seen as the appropriate point of reference when seeking submissions pertinent to Catholic

schools.

CCSP is independent from other Church educational authorities.

We fund a scholarship to ACU students to promote partnership with parents in schooling.


There is great enthusiasm from our nominated representative and those other parents who have

become involved with her in the work on behalf of parents.

There has been a warm reception and support for parent organisation from the Director and Bishop.

Those parents who have become involved see the value. The Parkes/Forbes parents saw a definite

victory in the bus issue, and were encouraged to see a “city-based” organisation pursuing interests

which are very important to country parents.

Our parents who are involved sense that “our voices together are making us obvious”.

Choir 2000 and the Parkes bus issue were resolved successfully and well received.


Concerns

CCSP - State Level

The Secretariat does not have sufficient autonomy to comment on public issues as they arise.

The time constraints inherent in a part-time Executive Officer are a challenge. Roger works

tirelessly and his shoes will be too hard to fill if this position is not made full-time.

We lack policy statements on a number of areas of concern. We do not have adequate ways of

developing position papers which respond to requests.

Parent Net is far too infrequent. The ‘human interest’ angle is admirable but very difficult and time

consuming to produce.

Diocesan Level

Large distances and small scattered numbers of parents pose real problems for this Diocese.

Because we have no Diocesan parent organisation what will happen when Cate resigns as the

nominated representative?

How do we motivate and maintain parent interest.


That CCSP redesigns Parent Net and produces it more frequently. Look at the NSWPC and

APC formats.

That CCSP provides parents with more frequent updates of what CCSP is involved in.

That CCSP develops better ways of preparing position papers and policy statements.

That CCSP uses technology more extensively - eg email, teleconferences, web-page etc.

That in our diocese we investigate the possibility of building a Diocesan parent group around

our school board system by being more innovative in our use of technology. We use

imagination to develop a unique approach which suits the circumstances of our diocese.


44.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE

FEDERATION OF CATHOLIC PARENTS’ AND FRIENDS’

ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DIOCESE OF WOLLONGONG


Phone interview with a President of a school P & F.

Surveys returned by the nominated representative.

Wollongong Federation has been re-establishing itself over the last 3 years.

The President and one other executive member have had direct contact with CCSP.

The P & F Federation sees itself currently in a caretaker mode while the Catholic Church generally

in the Diocese and the CEO is being reorganised. When this settles down the P & F Federation will

have a clearer picture of where it fits in and will get to work with the new Executive.


CCSP has been established quickly as the peak parent body for Catholic Education. Its credibility

was established, particularly, by the integrity and perseverance of the first Chairperson and

Executive Officer.

Parents now have a focus for dealing with issues of importance concerning children.

There exists now a network and forum for parent organisations in each diocese to interact and

exchange information and experiences.

Now that our executives have reorganised to allocate different members to deal with different

issues, there is hope that the volume of agenda may be managed better.

The Executive staff are very helpful and encouraging.


This official body has created an image of a voice of advocacy for parents.

Concerns

CCSP - State Level

Meetings of the Committee are so infrequent that much happens between meetings. When a

representative misses even one meeting there is a big gap in knowledge.


The time and cost for representatives to attend meetings is substantial.

It is hard to find time at meetings to deal adequately with individual issues, to develop position

papers, etc.

Too much information! Sometimes the volume of paper is daunting.

Roger spends much more time on the job than he is paid for. This could have grave consequences

after he eventually retires.

Diocesan Level

Parish priests and principals do not get behind the parent body and support it. Many of them are

suspicious - even though they have their own structures and professional bodies.

The CEO needs better mechanisms for getting out to parents and finding out what the real issues

and concerns of parents are.

The notion of partnership needs to be revisited. It seems to be strong in the rhetoric only. Parents

do not experience it as being taken seriously. The spirit of cooperation and partnership within our

system is not strong.


That our parent body approach the CEO to seek its co-operation in establishing and

supporting a diocesan Secretariat within the CEO.

That email connection be provided for all representatives, via the school network if possible,

to allow faster communication. If all members of CCSP had access to compatible computers

and modems it would be possible to organise exchanges between Sydney meetings to discuss

issues and perhaps deal more quickly with topical issues.

That internet meetings be trialled on a once a month basis to determine if this can make it

possible to have in-person meetings only twice or three times per year.

That CCSP continues to enhance the networks and connections that have been built up over

the past four years.

That CCSP works on building a Media image so that when a parent perspective is required the

media will automatically seek out the ‘Catholic parent voice’ as well as other voices

That our Federation renews its promotion of CCSP via newsletters and visits to meetings.

That CCSP produces an information video to be shown at P & F meetings to explain CCSP

and highlight its functions.

That levies be introduced to support our parent organisation. If we put resources in we will

get value back. If we pay peanuts we end up getting monkeys. Volunteers get worn out.

That CCSP reviews and adjusts the role and hours of the Executive Officer in the light of

similar positions in comparable organisations.


47.

Part Four

ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES OF THESE EARLY DAYS :

THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE REVIEWER

4.1.0 In this section of the Report, I present a summary of the major achievements and

challenges of these early days which emerged as significant from my immersion of the data

of this review.

The data was generated from :

personal interviews.

survey returns.

survey summaries.

CCSP minutes of meetings and official documents.

CCSP Representatives responses to the emerging themes and recommendations.

attendance at CCSP meetings.

4.1.1 Major achievements of these early days are :

becoming recognised so quickly as the official voice of parents.

establishing stable, approachable, responsive, quality secretariat.

progress in developing effective communication within Council.

progress in embracing technology.

being served by dedicated Chairpersons and Management Committee

assisting more parents to think globally.

engaging in highly successful partnership ventures.

4.1.2 The major challenges for CCSP as it prospers to move beyond its early years are:

managing the difficulties of time and volunteerism.

Improving CCSP’s mode of operation.

strengthening the identification of parents with CCSP.

balancing internal and external credibility.

maintaining appropriate independence within co-operative partnerships.

addressing the need to develop a common understanding of the partnership.

4.2.0 IMPORTANT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THESE EARLY DAYS

4.2.1 Official Voice

The CCSP is to be highly commended on the achievements of its early days. Great inroads have

been made in the relatively short time since Council’s inauguration. One original representative

said she believed just surviving these first years would have been a major achievement. She went

on to express pride that within three short years the point of view of Catholic school parents’ is now

being regularly presented to Ministers, politicians, education bodies, Bishops and the wider

community.


Council has successfully given Catholic school parents an official voice in New South Wales

political, ecclesial and educational forums. There has been good representation of CCSP at the

myriad of meetings and functions where it has been required. The CCSP is regularly invited to

provide input into public discussions, into the development of policy and to attend launches.

4.2.2 Secretariat

The Executive Officer has worked tirelessly and successfully in the service of Council. He is

widely perceived to be the “engine room” and lynch-pin of the Council, and a person who works

above and beyond at all times. The stability and quality of the Council secretariat (Roger

O’Sullivan and Margaret Coker) has been extremely important in an organisation of rapidly

changing membership. Their personal knowledge of representatives has been vital.

Roger’s depth of knowledge in educational and political matters, his contacts and his understanding

of the culture of educational and political bureaucracies are recognised as important to Council.

Margaret and Roger are perceived to be eager to help representatives, efficient, responsive and

extremely approachable. The availability of the Executive Officer to attend Diocesan AGM’s and

Conferences to explain the CCSP is appreciated.

4.2.3 Communication Within Council

Strong efforts have been devoted to establishing effective communication channels within Council.

Summaries, reports and information have been circulated regularly. Parent organisations appreciate

receiving valuable information not readily accessible to them previously. The newsletter, Parent

Net, was developed. Although it did not appear consistently its value is affirmed and it has the

potential to significantly strengthen the communication model. Many suggestions for further

improvement in communication surfaced in this review.

Diocesan Parent Bodies appreciate receiving accurate information directly, not via the filter of the

schools. Access to this information is providing an opportunity for some Diocesan Parent Bodies to

reposition themselves in their own Dioceses. Some parents report initial successes in overcoming

those restrictions on participation in school decision-making which are based on inexperience in the

professional field of education and lack of knowledge.

4.2.4 Use of Technology

Council has worked hard to embrace technology as an important means of coping with its

communication problems posed by distance and the need to travel. A fax communication system

with representatives has been successfully developed. Council sought a grant from the state

government and received $10,000 which was put towards email and internet technology. The

direction for further development in this area has been set.

4.2.5 Dedication of Chairpersons and Management Committee

Representatives acknowledge the conviction and dedication of Council’s first two Chairpersons,

Caroline Benedet and Richard Parkinson, and that of the Management Committee. Their

dedication, in partnership with the Secretariat, was crucial in maintaining momentum between

meetings.


Caroline’s availability to network with Diocesan Parent Bodies and to attend Annual General

Meetings was appreciated by many school and Diocesan Parent Bodies. She set up initial meetings

with a wide range of officials. She was active in producing Parent Net and developing the election

strategy. Sydney CEO’s generosity in allowing her to attend to CSSP matters was widely

acknowledged in this review. Caroline’s efforts, availability, clear vision and strong energy put

Council up-front in many forums in its first two years.

Richard Parkinson, the second Chairman, was based in Albury in a country Diocese. He was

necessarily less available to be the public face or to be actively involved in producing Parent Net.

His employment circumstances and location meant he relied heavily on assistance from the

Executive Officer. During the election period his employer was not happy with him issuing public

political statements and this posed difficulties for him.

4.2.6 More Parents Now Think Globally

A number of key parents involved in the work of the CCSP or as representatives on Council, have

developed a wider understanding of, and broader perspectives on, Catholic education. CCSP

involvement has broadened their focus from local Catholic school and Education Office issues to

significant state and national curriculum and Catholic education issues. This number is relatively

small as yet. However, the phenomenon is evident in this review.

These parents now possess greater awareness of the significance of the CEC, NSW and NCEC in a

bigger picture. A number of respondents to this review spoke of the importance of the participative

and facilitative attitude of the CEC, NSW in these early years as an important factor in this process

of parent education.

4.2.7 CCSP Partnerships in Action

In these early years there have been a several outstanding examples of CCSP becoming involved

with other Catholic education groups in highly successful partnership ventures.

Election Lobbying: CCSP entered a joint venture with the Diocesan Directors, the

Congregational Leaders of Religious Institutes, and the CEC, NSW to ensure a co-ordinated

advocacy of state-wide Catholic educational issues in two election periods. The strategy was to

encourage a parent mounted effort with assistance and encouragement from the other players.

Election packages for parents were developed and distributed. Each school was encouraged to set

up a series of meetings with political candidates and CCSP negotiated this with the Association of

Catholic School Principals.

Child Abuse: When the Wood Royal Commission began to uncover child abuse, the CCSP joined

with several key stakeholders (IEU; NSWPC; CEC, NSW; and AIS) to sign a formal agreement to

work and plan together to address the issues which were emerging. This agreement was a proactive

move taken before the findings of the Royal Commission were released. Such anticipation

contributed greatly to Catholic education’s ability to respond when this was eventually required.

Conferences: CEC, NSW and CCSP have jointly sponsored six Conferences. These were

important formation events for parents who attended. In 1999, the Conference explored the Vatican

document, Towards the Third Millennium.


4.3.0 CHALLENGES FOR CCSP AS IT MOVES BEYOND ITS EARLY DAYS

4.3.1 The challenge to manage the difficulties of time and volunteerism

The issues of time and volunteerism have been continuous problems for CCSP and Diocesan Parent

Bodies during these early days of operation. There is a major issue today with amount of the time

people have to involve themselves in voluntary organisations.

There is no doubt that CCSP has achieved a positive image in its early days of operation. Equally,

however, there can be no doubt this success is due in large part to the hard work of a relatively

small number of very committed people.

The ability of Diocesan Parent Bodies to function as intended has also been problematical. Many of

these bodies are not confident they are truly representative of the views of parents in the diocese.

Most are without Executive Officers and rely solely on volunteers. They are struggling with these

same realities of time and volunteerism. Rural dioceses are spread across vast distances and travel

and isolation pose other substantive problems, for them.

4.3.2 The challenge to further improve the mode of operation

The model of Council described in the Constitution suggests that the eleven autonomous member

dioceses will be generating business and making decisions. They are to be supported in this by a

reactive, part-time Secretariat. This model has not worked because Council, like many voluntary

organisations in society, has to spend so much energy struggling with the part-time, voluntary and

episodic availability of parental efforts and contributions.

The initial approach to CCSP business was to seek papers from Council members, which are bodies

composed of volunteers who are usually in full time employment. This approach failed and the

model of Council ‘driving’ progress did not work as originally envisaged. Policy and decisions on

issue positions eg drugs, bullying, proved difficult to extract from Council under this initial stance.

Over time the mode of operation changed and the tactic was developed of putting up papers with

options and recommendations. The current working situation is that Council both reacts to the

suggestions of the Executive Officer and identifies issues for research.

For the CCSP to continue to develop in the next phase of its life it will need to make changes to the

way it operates and to its level of resourcing. Two options are:

a). CCSP meets more regularly, at least monthly, and establishes a system of sub-committees

which assume prime responsibility for taking the running on specific issues. If all

representatives have computers, modems and computer skills, meetings, via the Internet or

teleconferencing once a month could supplement face to face meetings three or four times a

year. This option is not favoured as it continues to rely heavily on volunteers finding time to

attend to responsibilities which are additional to those they carry in their Diocesan Parent

Bodies.

b). The recommended option is for CCSP to continue its current meeting schedule but devotes its

efforts primarily to defining policy parameters. It allows the Secretariat freedom to function

effectively within its policy parameters without needing to refer to CCSP representatives or

meetings on every issue. The Executive Officer is authorised to be the official media


spokesperson. This option requires the Secretariat to be strengthened and resourced more

adequately.

A full time Executive Officer needs to be employed and provided with research assistance.

A person of vision, skill and energy would be given the mandate to assist Diocesan Parent

Bodies and representatives to work up the base of CCSP across all Dioceses, to develop

strategies to become a true conduit of parent ideas and to work at building trust and

harmonious partnerships with Diocesan Directors and Principals.

A more adequately resourced Secretariat will assist representatives to avoid ‘volunteer

burnout’ by relieving them of some of the administrative/secretarial work which follows

Council meetings. The Executive Officer will continue to lead Council towards its decided

goals. This is an extension of the approach which has emerged from these early days of

CCSP experience.

4.3.3 The challenge to strengthen the identification of parents with CCSP

In this review a significant number of parents and parent bodies referred to confusion between two

organisations - the New South Wales Parents’ Council and the Council of Catholic School Parents.

One respondent even asked if Catholic education was splitting the resources and loyalty of people at

the local level. Anecdotes were offered related to the recent NSW and Federal elections, where

several politicians confused the two organisations. They attempted to dismiss CCSP lobbying as

being on behalf of the “rich and private” schools, which certainly indicates confusion.

The NSW Parents’ Council (NSWPC) has advocated for non-government schools for many years.

It continues to claim to represent that voice of all non-government schools. It effectively develops

and markets its ideas and policies and has served non-government schools well by its advocacy.

The NSWPC has been helpful to CCSP since its inauguration and liaison has been maintained.

Leaders of the NSWPC are keen for CCSP to work more closely with them and to join APC. The

current chairman of CCSP takes the view that the mandate of CCSP is Catholic school pupils and

parents, not non-government schooling, even though many views of the two bodies are clearly

similar.

Currently the two bodies co-operate well. They joined together in a joint NSW election meeting

with politicians in 1999. Co-operation now, and a review of the situation in several years time is

the current position of CCSP. In this early stage of Council’s development it would seem important

for CCSP to work at strengthening its own distinctive identity, and to gain wider recognition and

stronger allegiance from its own constituency, the parents with children in Catholic schools.

On the other hand CCSP must be aware of the dangers of becoming a ghetto group. In the future,

when its own identity has been more clearly established with its own constituency, it should take up

the issue of possible affiliation on the national front with other state based parent associations. This

may take the shape of affiliation with the Australian Parents’ Council or with other state based

Catholic associations.

4.3.4 The challenge to balance internal and external credibility

Parent organisations need to ensure their leadership statements are perceived to truly reflect the

views of parents. In this lies their ultimate credibility and potential for public impact.


Sustained credibility with politicians, educational and ecclesial authorities (external credibility)

depends on these authorities perceiving public statements of CCSP to be truly reflective of the

actual views of Catholic school parents. One respondent to this review offered the opinion that

currently the NSW P & C Association and Teachers’ Federation are perceived by many to have lost

touch with the views of their constituents. Consequently their external credibility has suffered.

Their public stances are increasingly being repudiated or ignored with confidence by the

government and education authorities.

Credibility with Catholic school parents (internal credibility) depends on their perception that CCSP

is successfully representing and advocating parents’ interests in major forums of influence. This

internal credibility will come from being seen to listen to the real needs of parents and to be

responding to them. The inherent danger for the CCSP is that it may focus overly on being seen to

be successfully engaged in political, educational and public relations forums and neglect to put

sufficient energy into ensuring that it is in touch with and advocating grass root parent desires.

Respondents are acutely aware of the lack of connection between parents at the school level with

both Diocesan Parent Bodies and CCSP. Much effort has gone into attempting to create these links.

There is a strong will to find new and creative ways to build these connections. The voluntary

nature of parent efforts is one difficulty. Another is the reality that many new parents join schools

each year while others move on as their children leave the schools. Well thought out strategies

which are persistently applied will be needed in the next phase of development of CCSP as it moves

beyond its early days.

4.3.5 The challenge to maintain appropriate independence within co-operative

partnerships

Previously in this Report, evidence has been presented which illustrated that much has been

achieved in these early days of the close association of the CCSP with the CEC, NSW, In fact, the

good will and assistance of the CEC, NSW has been an important factor in the CCSP becoming so

quickly established within the NSW Government and educational circles.

All strengths, of course, have a downside. A few respondents, with an eye to the future, stressed the

need for CCSP to project a stronger image of parent independence within the community. Their

concerns are that problems of morale, credibility and vitality may emerge if the CCSP is perceived

as being an arm of the CEC, NSW. The underlying fear is the CDSP will become a ghetto group

restricted to NSW and perceived to agreeably fall into doing what the CEC, NSW and the Bishops

say. The respondents who spoke of this concern believe the CCSP will die through lack of vitality.

Ultimately the CCSP may consider affiliating with a bigger national body. This could be the

Australian Parents’ Council or even a National Catholic Parents’ Council. When the time is right

this should give CCSP renewed energy, would be an alternative way for its members to link into the

big picture of education in Australia and would let it be seen to have the status, independence and

recognition it justly deserves.

There is no doubt the benefits of the current situation of a very close association with the CEC,

NSW far outweigh the disadvantages at this stage. This close co-operation should continue, always

with an eye on the issue of the perceived independence of the parent perspective, in the coming

phase of CCSP’s experience.


This challenge to maintain an appropriate independence must be balanced within the context of

co-operative partnerships. The next challenge, therefore, is complementary to this one.

4.3.6 The challenge to work with partners towards an agreed meaning of partnership and

towards a reculturing which is more supportive of authentic partnership

The existence of Diocesan Parent Bodies and the CCSP means parents now have formal platforms

of influence. These bodies give parents a new possibility of fostering “fulfilment of the role of

parents in Catholic school children, including the right and need for parents’ voices to be heard and

heeded at every level of the Catholic Church’s school-education endeavour”.

Parents now have the potential to take their proper place as authentic and more equal partners in

Catholic education. Much of the evidence of this Review, however, suggests the need for a

reculturing around the notion of partnership with parents.

The data of the Review highlights strengths which can be built on in this restructuring process as

well as obstacles to its development.

4.3.6.1 The strengths to be built on include:

much goodwill and varying levels of support from senior personnel in CEO’s and

schools.

a healthy relationship and ready access to the Executive of the Catholic Principals

Association in NSW and ACT.

mission and vision statements in most diocesan education systems which espouse

commitment to partnership with parents in Catholic education.

Church documents on Catholic education which have had a strong emphasis on the

themes of partnership, collaboration and community – particularly those since 1998.

the volumes of research data on the importance of the role of the family in the

religious and educational development of the child.

4.3.6.2 The Review data identified these obstacles to be addressed by partners in Catholic

education if a more supportive culture of partnership is to be developed:

the current paradigm of school operation does not seem to incorporate strongly

enough findings of research literature on the role of the family in the educational and

religious development of the child.

a disturbing number of respondents described a culture in school and diocesan

structures which works towards restricting parents to fund raising or token and

reactive forms of involvement. These respondents feel frustrated trying to live the

new reality of parent involvement in Catholic education in the face of an old culture

of exclusion and token involvement.

relatively little money is spent on parents and their formation or support by many

CEO’s.

the history of the CCSP is that it did not grow out of a ground swell from diocesan

parent groups. It is perceived by some (parents and others) to have been brought into

being by a group of dedicated Sydney lay people and some of their Bishops. This

possible explains, in part, the wariness of some parents and the low levels of

awareness and ownership.


many professional educators find it hard to trust parents to be involved in education.

Some of this, of course, may be the result of unfortunate experience. This draws

attention to the reality that a reculturing of partnership in education needs to be

accompanied by programs of formation (not just information) for parents. It also

raises the question of how much formation has occurred for Principals and other

leaders to prepare them for more equal partnership with parents.

It is important that conversations on the notion of parents as partners be firmly based on

the fundamental beliefs and assumptions (ecclesial and educational) about the role of

parents in the education of their children. The two key focus questions should be:

What do Church documents say?

What does the educational research literature say about the importance of the role of

the family in the religious and educational development of the child?

4.4 Summary

The progress which has been made in these early days is impressive and reflects very

favourably on the commitment of many parents who have served on the Diocesan Parent

Bodies and the CCSP.

Strong acknowledgement must go as well to those other Catholic educational organisations

which have generously assisted the Parent Bodies with abundant goodwill and much

assistance. There is evidence of willingness of other stakeholders in Catholic education to

assist the present bodies to more adequately “fulfil” the role of parents of Catholic school

children, including the right and need for parent voices to be heard and heeded at every

level of the Catholic Church’s school-education endeavours.

There have been a considerable number of “uncertainties, pressures, reluctances and

objective difficulties with “getting it right”. After pondering on these difficulties which

were shared with me in this Review, I categorised them into eleven theme areas and

forty-one suggestions for improvement. What these themes and recommendations are, and

how they were considered and weighed for levels of support, forms Part Five of this

Report.


Part Five

DISCERNING THE APPRORIATE PATH AHEAD

5.1.0 This fifth section of the report describes how the suggestions for improvement which were

generated in this Review were organised and tested for levels of support by CCSP

Representatives.

5.2.0 The areas covered in this section are:

Development of draft recommendations and themes from suggestions for

improvement.

Weighing for levels of support.

Development of four priorities.

5.3.0 Draft Recommendations and Themes

I considered many suggestions for improvement put forward in this Review and formulated

forty-one (41) draft recommendations which I then grouped according to theme areas.

Eleven (11) themes were identified.

The Theme Areas were:

Strengthen grass roots involvement.

Strengthen the support role of the Executive Officer.

Develop regular schedules and procedures.

Increase the level of support for Diocesan representatives.

Promote publicly the CCSP mission and its Catholic school identity.

Communication: Revitalise Parent Net.

Communication: Use technology more fully.

Communication: Respond more quickly to issues.

Communication: Dialogue with Bishops and CEO/CSO Directors.

Develop formation, succession and induction programs.

Affirmation and recognition of parent efforts.

5.4.0 Weighing for levels of support

At the CCSP meeting on 17th

September, 1999 Representatives were asked to indicate their

levels of support for the Themes and Draft Recommendations.


5.4.1 Themes showing levels of support and ranking

Eleven (11) themes within the data were identified and Representatives indicated their

level of support in a forced choice exercise.

THEMES Rank Level of Support

Max = 44

A. Strengthen grass roots involvement 2 39

B. Strengthen the support role of the Executive Officer 1 43

C. Develop regular schedules and procedures 9 23

D. Increase the level of support for Diocesan representatives 3 34

E. Promote publicly the CCSP mission and its Catholic school

identity

4 32

F. Communication : Revitalise Parent Net 7 27

G. Communication : Use technology more fully 6 28

H. Communication : Respond more quickly to issues 5 30

I. Communication : Dialogue with Bishops and CEO/CSO

Directors

7 27

J. Develop formation, succession and induction programs 10 21

K. Affirmation and recognition of parent effort 11 15

Key to Forced Voting Choice

A vote to the value of four (4) against the three (3) most important themes.

A vote to the value of three (3) against the next three (3) in order of importance.

A vote to the value of two (2) against the next three (3)

A vote to the value of 1 against the two (2) themes with the least support.

Themes As Supported By Representatives

A B C D E F G H I J K

Armidale 3 4 2 4 2 4 3 3 1 2 1

Bathurst 4 4 2 4 3 1 2 1 3 3 2

Broken Bay 4 4 1 3 3 2 2 2 4 3 1

Canberra/Goulburn 4 3 1 4 2 3 3 4 2 2 1

Lismore 3 4 4 3 2 2 4 2 1 3 1

Maitland-Newcastle 4 4 1 3 2 3 2 4 3 1 2

Parramatta 3 4 4 2 4 3 2 3 1 2 1

Sydney 4 4 2 3 4 1 3 2 3 2 1

Wagga Wagga 4 4 2 3 3 2 1 3 4 1 2

Wilcannia Forbes 3 4 3 2 3 4 2 4 2 1 1

Wollongong 3 4 1 3 4 2 4 2 3 1 2

Total 39 43 23 34 32 27 28 30 27 21 15


5.4.2 Draft Recommendations As Considered and Supported (showing level of support, rank and Diocesan support)

Levels of Support and Rankings for Draft Recommendations by Diocese

(Tested for support with Representatives at CCSP Meeting 17 September, 1999)

Grass Roots Exec. Officer Schedules Support Diocesan Representatives Promote Mission - Catholic Identity

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8

Armidale 10 7 5 10 7 10 8 7 5 7 8 7 10 8 5 8 8 7 7 7 7 5 7

Bathurst 10 8 3 8 7 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 8 5 8 7 7 8 7 8 5 7

Broken Bay 10 10 3 8 10 10 8 7 8 5 8 8 8 7 10 10 10 8 8 7 5 5 8

Canb/Goulb 10 7 7 7 7 10 10 7 7 5 5 5 8 8 5 5 8 8 5 5 5 8 8

Lismore 8 7 8 8 8 7 8 3 8 5 7 10 5 5 8 10 10 8 5 3 0 5 5

Mait-New 8 7 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 8 8 8 10 7 8

Parramatta 5 8 5 10 5 8 10 5 7 5 5 3 10 10 10 10 10 5 8 3 10 5 10

Sydney 10 8 5 8 8 8 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 8

Wagga 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 7 10 5 7 10 8 8 10 10 10 7 8 7 8 8 7

Wilc/Forbes 10 8 8 10 7 10 10 7 8 8 10 10 10 8 7 8 8 8 7 7 8 7 8

Wollongong 8 7 7 10 10 8 10 7 8 8 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 8 8 7 8 8 8

Total 97 85 69 97 87 97 92 70 84 71 81 83 92 87 84 96 99 84 80 69 77 71 84

Parent Net Technology Response time Dialogue CEO’s Formation – Induction - Succession Affirm KEY

F1 F2 F3 G1 G2 G3 H1 H2 I1 I2 I3 I4 J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 K1

Armidale 10 10 10 8 10 10 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 8 7 10 = Absolute support

Bathurst 7 5 5 7 5 5 8 5 10 8 8 7 10 8 8 8 7 10 8 = Very strong support

Broken Bay 5 10 8 7 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 7 10 5 8 8 7 7 = Strong support

Canb/Goulb 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 10 10 5 10 10 5 10 8 7 5 = Prepared to support it

Lismore 3 5 3 10 10 7 7 7 3 3 8 5 10 8 5 7 8 3 3 = Low level of support

Mait-New 10 10 10 8 8 10 10 8 8 8 10 10 10 7 7 8 8 8 0 = No support

Parramatta 10 10 10 5 5 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 8

Sydney 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 5 8 7 5 5 7 Maximum of

Wagga 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 10 7 8 10 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 support possible = 110

Wilc/Forbes 10 10 10 7 7 10 10 10 7 8 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 Highest support = 99

Wollongong 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 10 10 10 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 Lowest support = 69

Total 88 95 89 87 86 93 88 86 79 84 95 76 92 89 71 82 84 81


DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS AS CONSIDERED BY CCSP REPRESENTATIVES (Presented according to Themes showing Level of Support and Rank)

Level of Support

Max = 110

Rank

N = 41

A. STRENGTHEN GRASS ROOTS INVOLVEMENT

A1. That each Diocesan Parent Body will develop an overall strategy for generating interest and greater participation from parents at local

levels.

This strategy should:

- establish firm open lines of communication.

- consider ways of tapping into parent interest in local issues which affect them.

- repeatedly put before parents evidence of successes in addressing issues.

- stress educational involvement which goes beyond compliant non-intervention.

- stress trust and relationship building with the local Principal.

97 = 2

A2. That Diocesan Parent bodies constantly focus on educating parents about the functions of the diocesan and state bodies of CCSP. In

doing this they need to keep perspective by realising there are new parents to be reached all the time. 85 20

A3. That the CCSP Executive be given greater responsibility for directly assisting Diocesan Parent Bodies. This may mean regular visits

to meet with them or video/teleconferencing links in lieu of travel. Income to CCSP will need to rise to allow this to happen. 69 40

B. STRENGTHEN THE SUPPORT ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

B1. That CCSP develop a stronger paid resource support base to enable it to maintain a strong level of vitality and to more effectively

resource parent organisations at the Diocesan level. This means a full time Executive Officer with secretarial support. 97 = 2

B2. That the Executive Officer be a person of vision, skill and energy who is given a mandate to assist Diocesan groups to work up the

base of the CCSP. 87 15

B3. That the Executive Officer be provided with adequate assistance to help in areas such as Publishing Parent Net more regularly and on

time.

- Updating the Web site.

- Assisting representatives to communicate with their Diocesan parents.

- Issuing monthly updates on Council activities for distribution to representatives.

- Chasing up “loose ends” with representatives.

- Researching issues and preparing summary of papers.

97 = 2


Level of Support

Max = 110

Rank

N = 41

C. DEVELOP REGULAR SCHEDULES AND PROCEDURES

C1. That CCSP re-establishes a regular consultative meeting schedule which includes Bishops, Diocesan Directors, CEC, Government

Ministers etc. CCSP can then report to parents at school level by newsletter or e-mail. This promotes visibility of Council and

corrects misconceptions at political levels about CCSP’s true constituency - ie Catholic schools.

82 28

C2. That the Secretariat identifies and develops regular procedures which will replace sporadic or occasional responses to important tasks,

eg:

- update of registers of interested parents who can be asked to be nominees for committees or focus groups

- maintainence of a register of members which gives the official name, date of membership, membership fee

- payments : attention to the formal requirements concerning written authorisations for representatives.

70 39

D. INCREASE THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR DIOCESAN REPRESENTATIVES

D1. That the Executive Officer becomes more involved with diocesan bodies and their executives and be more available to assist them

directly in their efforts to become effective, to be more in touch with their constituencies, to implement the recommendations of this

review.

84 21

D2. That representatives be supported by relevant papers and information being sent directly to facilitate information sharing. Updates on

important issues to be provided monthly. 71 36

D3. That CCSP assists member organisations or representatives to respond to consultation requests by developing pro-forma sheets to

facilitate replies. 81 30

D4. That agenda items be circulated well before meetings of CCSP to enable representatives to consult with their diocesan organisations

and members. 83 27

D5. That CCSP streamlines its communication by providing more frequent, direct information to Diocesan Parent Bodies in a simple

regular format, eg newssheets or reports. 92 8

D6. That summary notes of CCSP speakers’ input, when appropriate, be made available to representatives to distribute to their

constituencies. 87 15

D7. That CCSP finds ways of reducing the voluminous amount of reading material which is distributed. 84 21

E. PROMOTE PUBLICLY THE CCSP MISSION AND ITS CATHOLIC IDENTITY

E1. That CCSP develop a well thought out strategy of promotion and consistently applies that strategy. This strategy must include strong

promotion at ‘grass roots’ level. Parents should see and hear, over and over again, what Council and the Diocesan Parent Bodies have 96 4


Level of Support

Max = 110

Rank

N = 41

already achieved and what the benefits are to them, their schools and their children.

E2. That CCSP strive to be more public about its identity and constituency. It be seen to represent Catholic schools, not non-government

schools, and to push this by action. It will ensure its voice is clearly distinguishable within the non-Government school lobby. 99 1

E3. That CCSP improves its media liaison to better explain its perspective on issues, eg funding concerns, to the media and the public,.

Media liaison could be delegated. 84 21

E4. That CCSP target the Catholic press to strengthen the communities’ knowledge of the “Who we are” and “What are we doing” aspects

of identity. 80 32

E5. That a long term schedule of visits by members of Diocesan Parent Bodies to local parent body meetings be developed in Dioceses.

This could form part of the overall strategy of promotion. 69 40

E6. That CCSP raises the public profile of its role, functions and activities through newspapers, especially the Catholic press, media

liaison, the production of a video and the publication of brochures which attach faces to the CCSP name. 77 34

E7. That from time to time some publicity information be packaged in the form of 30 second grabs for purposes of dissemination of

information around the dioceses eg rural radio. 71 36

E8. That CCSP representatives on Committees prepare an outline of who they are and what their representation entails. This information

be on the Web and summarised in Parent Net. 84 21

F. COMMUNICATION : REVITALISE PARENT NET

F1. That Parent Net become a monthly Newsletter which can be distributed to parents. This should alleviate concerns representatives have

about getting information out to their constituents. 88 13

F2. That copies of each Parent Net be sent to the local Bishop, The Diocesan Director, parish priests and school principals. 95 5

F3. That Parent Net be more informative of CCSP activities, meetings, issues and above all it must appear regularly. 89 11

G. COMMUNICATION : USE TECHNOLOGY MORE FULLY

G1. That CCSP establishes e-mail rather than fax communication with all Council members to accelerate two-way communication. This

will mean a computer/modem/printer purchase plan and a training and support program to assist parents who are currently unable to

use this technology

87 15

G2. That CCSP explores the wider uses of email, either personal or as a way of connecting school parent bodies with Diocesan Parent

Bodies or the State body. 86 18


Level of Support

Max = 110

Rank

N = 41

G3. That Diocesan Parent Bodies find more effective ways to relay information to school level parent leaders - without these

representatives CCSP will lose its network to contact parents 93 7

H. COMMUNICATION : RESPOND MORE QUICKLY TO ISSUES

H.1 That on big issues or those requiring an urgent response surveys be sent directly to the local school based parent groups. If possible

include a pro-forma for ease of response. 88 13

H.2 That CCSP develop a system for sending some agreed information directly to local school bodies. It may reach more parents this way 86 18

I. COMMUNICATION : DIALOGUE WITH BISHOPS AND CEO/CSO DIRECTORS

I.1 That regular, scheduled, well prepared interchanges and discussions be organised between the Diocesan Parent Body and the Director,

and the Diocesan Parent Body and the Bishop. 79 33

I.2 That Diocesan Parent Bodies initiate discussions with the CEO/CSO Director re the best practice of disseminating parent information

throughout the Diocese. 84 21

I.3 That over the next three years CCSP initiates an extended conversation with Diocesan Directors, CEO/CSO staff and principals

associations with a view to arriving at shared understandings of appropriate forms of parental involvement, the concept and practices

of partnership in catholic education, and to clarify expectations of the desired working relationship between schools, the CEO/CSO

and CCSP. Such an initiative could take the form of a diocesan consultation conducted under the auspices of the governing education

body. A management committee drawn from the three interest groups could be formed and the product could be a diocesan position

paper or policy statement on partnership in Catholic education.

95 5

I.4 That CCSP initiates a conversation within in the Catholic education sector aimed at developing a distinctive consensus understanding

of the section of the preamble to the National Goals for Schooling which states “ It (this statement) also acknowledges the role of

parents as the first educators of their children and the central role of parents in the learning process”. This conversation must include

strong reference to Church documents which relate to the role of parents in their children’s education.

76 35

J. DEVELOP FORMATION, SUCCESSION AND INDUCTION PROGRAMS

J.1 That each Diocesan Parent Body develops a plan to identify and prepare parents who could take on representative roles. This may

involve providing formation experiences, advertising etc. 92 8

J.2 That a strategy for leadership development be formulated in each diocese and it be focused on parents who are involved in school

bodies or cluster/regional representation. Strong emphasis needs to be given to this grass roots level of formation. 91 10

J.3 That CCSP work towards the development of formation teams, consisting of parents and CEO/school personnel in partnership, to

assist with induction and formation programs for members of P & F’s or School Boards. Where possible this should involve the

Diocesan Parent Body and the Principal working together.

71 36


Level of Support

Max = 110

Rank

N = 41

J.4 That CCSP and the CEC, NSW devote some of the joint workshops on themes identified in this review, eg ways of reaching and

involving parents at the local level; the struggle to avoid rhetoric and achieve greater authenticity in partnership. 82 28

J.5 That as CCSP enters its second phase it develops and documents formal processes of induction for new representatives.

It is important that this induction process be thorough and that it contains a trigger to ensure that it is always implemented. 84 21

K. AFFIRMATION AND RECOGNITION OF PARENT EFFORT

K.1 That CCSP, at State and diocesan level develop a formal system which publicly recognises, affirms and encourages those parents

whose outstanding commitment, efforts and staying power in the face of family, occupation and other volunteer work, enables it to

achieve so much.

81 30


5.4.3 The eleven most highly supported draft recommendations

Forty-one (41) recommendations were extracted from the data. These were considered and

weighed for levels of support at the 17th

September CCSP meeting. The eleven (11) most

highly supported recommendations were:

1). That CCSP strive to be more public about its identity and constituency. It be seen to

represent Catholic schools not non-government schools, and to push this by action.

It will ensure its voice is clearly distinguishable within the non-government school

lobby. [E2 - 99]

= 2). That each Diocesan Parent Body will develop an overall strategy for generating

interest and greater participation from parents at local levels. This strategy should:

- establish firm open lines of communication.

- consider ways of tapping into parent interest in local issues which affect them.

- repeatedly put before parents evidence of successes in addressing issues.

- stress educational involvement which goes beyond compliant non-intervention

- stress trust and relationship building with the local principal. [A1 - 97]

= 2). That CCSP develop a stronger paid resource support base to enable it to maintain a

strong level of vitality and to more effectively resource parent organisations at the

Diocesan level. This means a full time Executive Officer with secretarial support.

[B1 - 97]

= 2). That the Executive Officer be provided with adequate assistance to help in areas such

as

- publishing Parent Net more regularly and on time.

- updating the Web site.

- assisting representatives to communicate with their Diocesan parents.

- issuing monthly updates on Council activities for distribution to

representatives.

- chasing up “loose ends” with representatives.

- researching issues and preparing summary of papers. [B3 - 97]

5). That CCSP develop a well thought out strategy of promotion and consistently applies

that strategy. This strategy must include strong promotion at ‘grass roots’ level.

Parents should see and hear, over and over again, what Council and the Diocesan

bodies have already achieved and what the benefits are to them, their schools and

their children. [E1 - 96]

= 6). That copies of each Parent Net be sent to the local Bishop, The Diocesan Director,

parish priests and school principals. [F2 - 95]

= 6). That over the next three years CCSP initiates an extended conversation with

Diocesan Directors, CEO/CSO staff and principals associations with a view to

arriving at shared understandings of appropriate forms of parental involvement, the

concept and practices of partnership in Catholic education, and to clarify


expectations of the desired working relationship between schools, the CEO/CSO and

CCSP. Such an initiative could take the form of a diocesan consultation conducted

under the auspices of the governing education body. A management committee

drawn from the three interest groups could be formed and the product could be a

diocesan position paper or policy statement on partnership in Catholic education.

[I3 - 95]

8). That Diocesan Parent Bodies find more effective ways to relay information to school

level parent leaders - without these representatives CCSP will lose its network to

contact parents [G3 - 93]

= 9). That CCSP streamlines its communication by providing more frequent, direct

information to Diocesan Parent Bodies in a simple regular format, eg newssheets or

reports. [D5 - 92]

= 9). That each Diocesan Parent Body develops a plan to identify and prepare parents who

could take on representative roles. This may involve providing formation

experiences, advertising etc. [J1 - 92]

= 9). That CCSP re-establishes a regular consultative meeting schedule which includes

Bishops; Diocesan Directors; CEC, NSW; Government Ministers etc. CCSP can

then report to parents at school level by newsletter or e-mail. This promotes

visibility of Council and corrects misconceptions at political levels about CCSP’s

true constituency, i.e Catholic schools. [C1]

5.5.0 Four Priorities

From within the new data I identified four (4) priority areas which I believe are strongly

supported and will assist the CCSP to move forward with surety into the next phase of its

development. I believe they will have the commitment of CCSP Representatives and their

Diocesan Parent Bodies.

These Priority Areas are:

Strengthen the CCSP Secretariat and support for Diocesan Representatives.

Strengthen Grass Roots Involvement

Promote the Mission, Role and Catholic Identity of CCSP

Improve Communications.

5.6.0 Priorities and longer term goals 2000 – 2004

After considering the level of support for the draft recommendations I formulated a

number of longer-term goals. These are to be worked on by the Diocesan Parent Bodies

consistently over the next four years as they endeavour to make substantial progress in the

four directions for improvement indicated in the priorities. All together, nineteen (19)

goals have been recommended for pursuit in the period 2000 – 2004.


5.6.0 Priority One: Strengthen the CCSP Secretariat and Support for Diocesan

Representatives


Goal 1.2 The CCSP Executive Officer will have adequate assistance to help in such areas

as:
















This plan should:



them.



intervention.













Goal 2.4 Diocesan Parent Bodies and the CCSP will develop and document formal

processes of induction for new Representatives. The induction will contain a

trigger to ensure it is always implemented.

Goal 2.5 Diocesan Parent Bodies will liaise with their Catholic Education Offices to

achieve effective support positions for development and formation of parents as

an integral part of CEO/CSO services.







school parents.




children.



Goal 3.4 Copies of parent Net will b sent to the Diocesan Bishop, Director, parish priests


Goal 3.5 In the next phase of its existence CCSP and Diocesan Parent Bodies will initiate

an extended conversation within the Catholic Education sector with a view to

arriving at clarity and shared understandings regarding:






Goal 4.1 Diocesan Parent Bodies will establish effective methods for relaying information

to school level leaders and for listening to their concerns. Discussions with the



Goal 4.2 An agreed system will be developed for CCSP to communicate directly with

school based parent groups on issues requiring an urgent response or immediate



Goal 4.3 CCSP will establish email rather than fax communication with all Council

members to accelerate two-way communication. This may mean a

computer/modem/printer purchase plan and a training and support program to

assist parents who are currently unable to use their technology.




Goal 4.5 CCSP and Diocesan Parent Bodies improve their media liaison and will

effectively explain their perspective on educational issues to the wider

community.






Part Six

A RECOMMENDED STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

2000 – 2004

A MAP FOR THE PATH AHEAD

6.1.0 In this final section of this Report I present a strategic framework to guide the further

development of CCSP in the period 2000 – 2004.

There are five (5) recommendations and a concluding quote from a parent who has strong

commitment to working in partnership for the good of children in Catholic schools.

6.2.0 Recommendations

6.2.1 Recommendation One

That the CCSP adopts the following four (4) priorities and the associated longer term goals

as a strategic framework which will guide its further development in the period 2000 –

2004.

Priority One: Strengthen the CCSP Secretariat and Support for Diocesan Representatives



Goal 1.2 The CCSP Executive Officer will have adequate assistance to help in such areas as:


















This plan should:



them.



intervention.












Goal 2.4 Diocesan Parent Bodies and the CCSP will develop and document formal processes

of induction for new Representatives. The induction will contain a trigger to ensure

it is always implemented.

Goal 2.5 Diocesan Parent Bodies will liaise with their Catholic Education Offices to achieve

effective support positions for development and formation of parents as an integral

part of CEO/CSO services.








school parents.




children.




Goal 3.4 Copies of Parent Net will b sent to the Diocesan Bishop, Director, parish priests


Goal 3.5 In the next phase of its existence CCSP and Diocesan Parent Bodies will initiate an

extended conversation within the Catholic Education sector with a view to arriving

at clarity and shared understandings regarding:






Goal 4.1 Diocesan Parent Bodies will establish effective methods for relaying information to

school level leaders and for listening to their concerns. Discussions with the



Goal 4.2 An agreed system will be developed for CCSP to communicate directly with school

based parent groups on issues requiring an urgent response or immediate



Goal 4.3 CCSP will establish email rather than fax communication with all Council members

to accelerate two-way communication. This may mean a computer/modem/printer

purchase plan and a training and support program to assist parents who are

currently unable to use their technology.




Goal 4.5 CCSP and Diocesan Parent Bodies improve their media liaison and will effectively

explain their perspective on educational issues to the wider community.





6.2.2 Recommendation Two

2.(a) That each Diocesan Parent Body develops its own Strategic Plan to guide its

development at the Diocesan level and to reflect its own context and specific

needs.


2.(b) These plans will include the four priorities from the Strategic Framework and

those long term goals from the Framework which are relevant. More specific

goals which respond to local needs will be included. The data presented in Part

Three of this Report will assist in determining Diocesan Goals and be a data bank

of ideas and strategies.

6.2.3 Recommendation Three

Each year an annual action plan will be produced by each Diocesan Parent Body and

CCSP which states annual targets, strategies, deadlines and responsibilities.

The cumulative effect of these successive annual action plans should be substantive,

evident progress in each priority area and through the successful achievement of the long

term goals.

6.2.4 Recommendation Four

That Goals 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 be pursued vigorously in the first two years of this second

phase of the existence of CCSP. For CCSP to continue its work, to grow and to become a

more effective support to Diocesan Parent Bodies the Secretariat must become full-time

work with full-time support.

6.2.5 Recommendation Five

The CCSP in the period 2000 – 2000 continues to be a service organisation which:

is careful not to intrude into the direction of dioceses.

responds to requests for representation from local dioceses.

assists Diocesan Groups to create widespread and constant “grass roots” listening

and dialogue among parents of children attending Catholic schools.

is careful about protocols with Diocesan Parent Bodies when communicating directly

with schools.

acts as the approved, official parent body authorised to bring to the attention of

educational and ecclesial bodies and Governments the needs felt by Catholic school

parents.

6.3.0 Returning To Fundamentals

I conclude this Report with a quote from one of the Representatives on CCSP. It focuses

attention on the central rationale for partnership in Catholic Education.

We must never lose sight of why we are here. We have children who we love and want the

best for. We want them to have a good education surrounded by FAITH + HOPE +

LOVE.

72.

We must never lose sight

of why we are here.

We have children who we

love and want the best for.

We want them to have a good

education surrounded by

FAITH + HOPE + LOVE.

early days - review of the ccsp

Documents