Page 2722 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I say that not only in the interests of the teachers in the system. I do not believe that you will find any teacher in the system who would not support the need for this. They are, after all, at the coalface, so to speak; they see on a daily basis the desperate need for this. I would suggest to you that society itself needs this input. If we do not address literacy and numeracy problems at that crucial Year 1, the problems that will be created for those disadvantaged children will flow through and probably will affect them for the rest of their lives. This, in turn, will affect the rest of society, because it is not only a problem of education. The simple fact is that, if they have problems with literacy and numeracy, the further they progress through the education system, the further they will fall behind and the more disillusioned they will become, so that, at age 15, which is the legal age for them to leave, most of them will accept that option. They might, under those circumstances, take themselves straight to the dole queue because the possibility of most of them finding employment with those problems of literacy and numeracy is very remote, I would suggest.
As a result, as a spin-off from that, we could have all sorts of other problems. Not only is it a drain upon social welfare; it could ultimately lead to problems with the law, the police and justice. It could see inadequate opportunities for housing. Health problems could also come into it. What I am trying to point out is that, if we do not address this at Year 1 of education, the ultimate cost to society is far greater than simply education. It covers a whole range of portfolio responsibilities. Therefore, I would urge the Government to not seriously consider but act upon the recommendation in paragraph 4.144.
On the other matter of peak enrolments, I would remind the Government that in last year's Estimates Committee report we made the same comments as to our concern about the primary schools of Gordon and Conder in the Tuggeranong valley. This year we are concerned about them in Gungahlin. The peak enrolments are 750 students. In fact, we made a couple of recommendations. I think, again, that they are worth repeating. The Estimates Committee recommended:
. future planning of primary schools and anticipated peak enrolments take cognisance of the socialisation of young children; and
. where primary schools with large enrolments are anticipated, the need for additional resources is examined with a view to adequately supporting both the students and staff of such schools.
I can only re-endorse those comments by this year's Estimates Committee.
Recently, in the "Education Perspective" section of a local daily newspaper, a primary school principal took me to task in a mild way in relation to school size and pointed out, quite correctly, that it was not the size of the school that necessarily decided the education of its pupils but the quality of the school.
Mr Wood: He was quoting my words.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .