Page 1921 - Week 07 - Thursday, 31 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We are in the best position relative to other States and I think we ought to retain that lead. I would like the ACT always to provide the best package to teachers because in those circumstances we would be better able to weather the storms that from time to time blow through the education system when particular teaching areas face shortages.
For example, at present in Australia there is a severe shortage of maths and science teachers. For that reason it is important that the ACT retains a competitive edge and is able to attract those sorts of teachers. It is true that at present the ACT does have a sufficient supply of those teachers and therefore we need to preserve that kind of edge. There is a push nationally for there to be a national benchmark for teachers' salaries. Whether that would mean the ACT could not retain an edge, I do not know. That is an issue I will be raising in Melbourne tomorrow.
Mr Moore also asked me to indicate how I would define the quality of education. Mr Stevenson made reference to that in his remarks and indicated that there was a certain trap in attempting to be too analytical or too prescriptive about a definition of quality. The point, of course, about our present education system is that in the ACT particularly many people see many different things in the system and prefer and choose particular items that they believe are of greater quality than others. It is obvious, for example, that some people choose the non-government system over the government system because they see a quality argument there. People choose particular schools within the government system because they see quality arguments between those schools.
I made reference yesterday to the fact that despite the constant support from members opposite for the neighbourhood school principle, as presently defined - and there are other definitions of it - - -
Mr Connolly: Mr Collaery supported that this morning.
MR HUMPHRIES: The point I am making, Mr Connolly, is that there are different definitions of that concept. I also support the neighbourhood school concept, but I do not believe that "neighbourhood" should necessarily be defined as the NCDC planned suburbs.
It is worth noting that there are choices being made all the time in our education system and, despite members opposite supporting the neighbourhood school principle, about a quarter of all government school students do not go to their neighbourhood school. This is an indication that many parents, and presumably also many students, choose things available elsewhere than at their local neighbourhood school. That is an important point. If we say that the neighbourhood school principle, as presently defined, is essential to the quality of education, what do we say to those parents who do not choose the neighbourhood school?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .