Meadmore is critical of this top-down approach to devolution.
Meadmore looks at the developments of the last 15 years across the Australian states. Devolution is seen as inevitability, politicians from all parties have accepted it as the path for our education system to follow. The 1993 Schools of the Future report produces a different model of devolution. It is driven by an economic rationalist agenda where only economic matters matter and Meadmore critical of this. The report also alludes to the consuming responsibilities principals are faced with as a part of the devolution of power.
Meadmore is judgmental of the fact Queensland has yet to allow principals the power to hire and fire staff, which is ironic when devolution is the process of shifting power supposedly to these people.
Meadmore shows concern about the current developments of devolution of the education system. He is sceptical of its ability to provide increased learning outcomes, when the primary goal of decentralising power is related to economics and cost cutting. Time spent by principals and administrators is being consumed with managerial issues associated with making education a competitive business. While power is given to them for these issues, what has been found ineffective is the inability of principals to have the power to make curriculum decisions. Certain features of the curriculum have been re-centralised providing "curriculum options" that fall "within systematic guidelines" that essentially constrain any curriculum flexibility. What is being neglected is the students needs, teacher support and development, parent and community support to name a few. Meadmore is critical of Queenslands attempt to link School Based Management with increased learning outcomes. This is a contentious issue where research indicates that learning outcomes are sublimated at the school level by the need to deal with managerial issues associated with self-management.