Page 4002 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
While it is interesting to note that neither the Trades and Labour Council representative nor the nominees of the Australian Education Union found it necessary to proffer a minority report or to support those who did, the remarks of the minority commentators cannot be easily dismissed. They are senior representatives in the education establishment; and their concerns, therefore, command attention, if not always support. For example, the opposition to student progression in the P and C Associations' minority report calls for further careful examination, because there is sense in the argument that, in general, the age cohort system has advantages and that such a form of mass and irregular streaming as general student progression would be an administrative nightmare. I am sure that the Minister would be prepared to admit that. The P and C Associations' suggestion that student progression should be decided on a case by case basis, taking account of social, emotional and physical development as well as academic achievement, I believe, has much to recommend it.
On the other hand, criticism of the majority report seeking a reduction in the number of schools is unjustified; not because the Council of P and C Associations is not entitled to its opinion of opposition to school closures but because the MACPE report does not recommend such a course and, from my reading of it, does not even mention school closures. However, it does make this pertinent statement, which is one that, whilst I have long claimed it to be the case, I have not seen supported by educationalists in writing. It is stated at paragraph 6.10:
The aims of maximising equity and access are not simple to implement. For example, small neighbourhood schools maximise access but inhibit equity, since the fixed costs of small schools are cross-subsidised by larger schools. Students in such schools therefore draw a disproportionate share of available resources.
At last, Minister, the truth is committed to paper and to posterity. It is interesting to note just how close the current system comes, in some sections, to the Liberal Party's policy on education. For example, paragraph 4.3 states:
The ACT government school system, from its creation in 1974, fostered the autonomy and individuality of its schools. Each school is governed by its own locally elected school board with responsibility for expenditure other than capital and salaries, and is responsible for approving its own school-based curriculum, developed within broad guidelines. The school board chair participates in the selection of the school principal, and the school principal participates in the selection of all school staff.
That paragraph, I would suggest, is but a short step from full school based management, as espoused by the ACT Liberal Party. The report itself has identified several issues that either have been canvassed by the Liberal Party or are strongly supported by us. Thus, as to recommendation 8, the design and construction of new school buildings and the non-subsidising of children of diplomats as ways of making savings and removing unfair subsidies have both been issues taken up by the Liberal Party. The question of literacy and numeracy has also been taken up, as graphically set out at page 19 and included as recommendation 2 of the report. While we have debated on numerous
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .