Page 1908 - Week 07 - Thursday, 31 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
bodies they represent. I was not aware that it was functioning with Dr Kinloch as chairperson. Perhaps I missed a statement to that effect. I believed that the Government was bringing down a green paper on the subject and I wonder where it is. We would all like to see it.
The Government said that it wanted an autonomous body, and yet it installed the Executive Deputy for education in the chair. How can such a body be autonomous? This is a further indication of the confusion that has occurred as a result of the creation of positions of Executive Deputies.
Dr Kinloch acknowledged the worth of the criteria for a good school proposed by Mr Wood and we thank Dr Kinloch for that. But why are those criteria not included in the list presented by Mr Humphries? Dr Kinloch is Executive Deputy for education. While I do not believe the position is worth much, surely Dr Kinloch should have taken some steps to ensure that Mr Wood's sensible proposals were added to the list. If the man believes something, why does he not act upon it?
Of course, the Residents Rally says it believes in spending more money on education, but it will not do so. Dr Kinloch spoke of some schools needing a better temper and better morale, suggesting that their small size was causing this problem. Can Dr Kinloch not see that any problem they have is caused by the threat to their existence? They know that no matter how high a quality of education they reach, no matter how enthusiastic they are, no matter how excited the school children are about their work, those schools will still be closed down. They know that the Government does not want them. That is obvious. Can members opposite not realise that the Government is creating the problem of temper and morale?
The introduction of self-government should have been a time when we acted further to improve our excellent school system. That was certainly the policy that the Labor Government adopted. (Extension of time granted)
Everyone has acknowledged the quality of the system, yet the Government's actions not only are damaging to the system but are also obscuring the need for improvement in a number of areas. We often repeat the view that we have an excellent system, a model that the rest of Australia should be following, but we are in danger of overlooking significant problems that require closer attention.
For example, our high school presentation is envied by the rest of Australia. Why are we not keeping it and improving it? As far back as 1983, a review of high schools concluded: "Our judgment is that too many schools are finding difficulty keeping pace with the changing needs of students". The review added that, despite the very good work, there was evidence of some poor teaching and weak leadership.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .