Page 4309 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The overwhelming majority of school communities submitting evidence to the inquiry had some degree of community use of their facilities outside school hours. Most were conducting comprehensive programs of community use of their facilities and saw themselves as integral with their local communities. They regarded their facilities as an essential part of the community infrastructure, particularly where there were no other community facilities located in close proximity to the school. The views expressed during the public hearings indicated that they saw the task of education as one which involved the whole community rather than the school acting in isolation.
On the other hand, it must also be said that some concern was expressed that schools are primarily there for educational purposes; that any additional use of the facility is not to be at the cost of that purpose. The committee, obviously, fully endorsed that proposal.
Given that some school communities believe that too much additional community usage of schools can increase wear and tear, in most cases the overwhelming majority believe that any of those perceived disadvantages would be far outweighed by what they see as advantages. For instance, the opportunity for reduced vandalism was one that was mentioned often. The gains made by a perceived community ownership of the school within a smaller community outside of the immediate school community itself was also something that was mentioned often. In some cases it was perceived that some attention would need to be given to physical security and safety at some of the schools if they wish to participate fully in the sorts of proposals that they were putting.
The sorts of things that some of the school communities said may need attention to enable them to participate fully were things like developing more flexible arrangements for securing the buildings; enabling the opening of portions of school structures for community activities, rather than the entire school building, which obviously has an impact on the cost incurred by the community group; ensuring access to safe and convenient parking, especially for families; and paying further attention to the vehicle flow of traffic in the vicinity of school premises.
A view that emerged as the inquiry proceeded - I think it is a strong view - was that the hire of facilities would be best managed at the local level by the school board or the Parents and Citizens Association within well-developed guidelines established by the Department of Education and Training in consultation with schools and with user groups. The school communities, under such a system, could be enabled to assess applications for the use of the facility, administer the day-to-day hiring arrangements, including the fees and the schedules, ensure adequate security and supervision, authorise and carry out minor maintenance duties, and collect and administer fees on a cost recovery basis. There was a great deal of enthusiasm, I believe, by most of the school communities which appeared in front of the committee in their views as to how they could see their schools becoming more of a part of the communities than they currently are.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .