Page 1617 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In very simplistic terms, Madam Speaker, which I stress is for the purpose only of identifying the magnitude of the problem, these figures translate into 10.4 primary and 2.8 high schools at a generous calculation of 520 students per primary or 894 students per high school. Some 1,226 of these 9,072 spaces, unidentified between sectors, are allocated for system-wide programs such as introductory English, junior assessment centres and learning centres. Perhaps significantly, the spaces reserved for such system-wide activity in 1992 were 1,480, so we have lost 254 of these spaces in a year. The figures, however one wishes to interpret them, add up to a situation which the ACT, facing a total overfunding of $79.5m, of which $18m is identified as education, cannot afford to ignore. Yet this is exactly what the Follett Labor Government has done.
Locked into an ill-advised commitment given before the last Assembly election by the Chief Minister that no school would close in the first three years of a Labor government, the Minister for Education and his department find that they have nowhere to go. Yet the consequences of keeping open all schools, not on educational grounds but simply for your own personal reasons of pride and an unwillingness to admit that you are wrong, the consequences of this selfish behaviour, are becoming apparent. We already have two primary schools in Tuggeranong looking to unprecedented peak enrolments of 750 students each, much to the concern of parents, teachers and the ACT Council of P and C Associations.
We know the reason for this development, Madam Speaker, because by creating two large schools you will save building a third. This is a sensible application of funds, but why should such savings be directed only at the educational facilities in South Tuggeranong? Why should the pupils at these two schools be obliged to learn with higher than usual peak enrolments when others elsewhere are allowed the luxury of being educated with many fewer pupils? Where is the social justice commitment so highly valued by the Labor Party in this example of discrimination?
What of the cost of maintaining some of these smaller schools? We know, for example, that in an unsuccessful effort to save Griffith Primary an extra $20,000 went into that school late last year. The amount, Madam Speaker, may not be large in overall budget terms even for a school; nevertheless, it can be significant if similar small amounts are being given ex gratia to prop up smaller schools, because, as everyone knows, the payment of such extra and special forms of assistance to one school results in the entire system receiving less. Again, this is hardly an example of social justice in action for which the Labor Government could feel any sense of pride.
Then there are the children of these smaller schools. What level of education are they receiving, no matter how dedicated and hardworking their teachers? How can the level of resources be comparable to an average size school despite herculean efforts by parents or the injection of special funds by a government? How do basic responsibilities, like playground duty, operate in a small school without placing extra strain on teachers, and how do important services like libraries and remedial reading activities operate effectively? Apart from these activities that might not operate effectively, what about those that perforce have to be cut back because of a lack of adequate resources, for example, languages or sport, where the options might have to be limited simply because there are insufficient students or teachers, or both, to provide choices?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .