Page 3406 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We had a dispute in the Estimates Committee about the fact that only 11 per cent of students in ACT primary schools participated in the reading recovery program, when 19 per cent were identified as requiring reading recovery. This figure of 11 per cent was disputed. The matter was taken on notice. I am saddened to have to say that the figure was correct. I received the following answer:
1992 Coverage: 11.8% of Year 1 students received a full Reading Recovery program. A further 4% received a partial program ... Coverage is less than 15% because of teaching time lost through illness and assessment ...
I could go on, but I have identified a number of areas where we need assistance. We need additional assistance, not a cut in teachers. However, extraordinarily, in the Estimates Committee the departmental head, Ms Vardon, stated:
... the reductions are not to areas where supplementary resources are provided for children ...
So the reductions are in mainstream teaching. I then pointed out:
Well, if you do not cut the supplementary resources, but you do cut the mainstream, will you not exacerbate the problems in the mainstream so that you will need more supplementary resources?
I would think that is a reasonably logical result. The Minister said:
No, I do not believe that that is a necessary outcome.
I find that an extraordinary statement. It is interesting that, to date, Mr Wood has not participated in this debate or, indeed, in any debate in this Assembly relating to these 80 teacher cuts. It was significant, I am sure, that the Chief Minister found it necessary to lead on this matter for a government which, in the eyes of the education community, is discredited. Mr Wood, I think that you are embarrassed - and you have every reason to be embarrassed - by this disgraceful behaviour. You subsequently confirmed again that the cuts could not be made in the supplementary area. I repeat: If you are going to cut them in the mainstream, then you must have an effect upon the supplementary area.
Ms Follett, the Chief Minister, made much about the school closure proposals that she took to be the Liberals' option. She also suggested that I had opposed the building of Lanyon High School and schools in Gungahlin. I want to place on record that that is totally incorrect. I categorically deny it. I have supported Lanyon High School, as I support schools in Gungahlin. The interesting point Ms Follett overlooked, or chose not to mention, is that this Government has not ruled out school closures as an option in the future. I refer again to the Estimates Committee transcript. We asked whether or not schools would be closed in the future by the Government. Mr Wood replied:
It is happening everywhere and schools will close in Canberra in the future, that is an inevitability.
Mr De Domenico: Were they his exact words?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .