Page 3945 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 23 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: No, it was me. I said "led by the Trots" - the Resistance bandits.
MR MOORE: That makes much more sense coming from Mr Connolly than it would from Mr Berry. The Minister, the man they entrusted to protect their schools and the standards within them, tells them that these cuts are being made to improve their education. We heard that reiterated today. Somehow or other this Minister has managed to convince himself that by cutting education, by cutting the number of teachers, we are going to improve education and educational standards in our schools.
If they realised where the principals of various high schools and colleges have proposed their cuts, I think they would be even angrier, and I think that is becoming more and more widely known. My assessment of the principals' responses is that they have indicated in a whole series of areas where the cuts will take place - in technology and languages other than English, the very areas that the Minister and the department stated they wished to support in schools. The Minister, on the one hand, has recognised that "education in high schools should be secure, safe and interesting"; that it should "value individuals and their diversity"; "that teachers should have high expectations of behaviour and be determined to allow each child to develop at his or her own rate"; "that students should be able to work in groups, to work with peers and to capitalise on opportunities to work outside as well as inside the schools". They are all quotes, Madam Speaker, from "Developing our High Schools", the paper that came from the high school forum this year.
Did the Minister imagine that the cuts he proposed would enhance and encourage these expectations in high schools? How will cutting work experience, registered courses, career advice, welfare, counselling, the arts, sport, languages other than English, and technology improve education in our high schools and colleges, and where are those cuts targeted? They are targeted at the people who can least afford to lose their educational opportunities. They are not targeted, Madam Speaker, at those who will manage in a very academic stream. Those people in schools usually manage anyway. They are specifically targeted at those for whom they can be least afforded. It is a question of social justice, Madam Speaker, and this Minister told us in the Estimates Committee that the cuts will not go anywhere that hurts; not at all. Well, where will they go? We had the example today. Where will the cuts happen? He does not know. He just does not know where those cuts are going to happen. He hopes that they will come from here and there.
Mr Wood said in his answer to a question that the Teachers Federation had circulated a document showing where those cuts were being made. Indeed, that is exactly what has happened, Madam Speaker. The document refers to the ACT Secondary Principals Council in particular. When you read through it, Madam Speaker, it is a series of schools and the budget implications, without nominating the names of the schools. So what do we get? Reiteration after reiteration: Technology, languages other than English, Asian languages, vocational pathways, languages other than English, student welfare area, languages other than English, reduce the work experience program - all the programs that are directed at those who are least capable of managing in our schools, those who are lowest on the pecking order, from what would appear to be the Labor perspective - cut back on Years 9 and 10 elective offerings, the things that keep kids interested in school, particularly those who have the most difficulty in remaining at school.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .