Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 298 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Indeed, the self-management process in schools is already under way. First of all, we cut the amount of maintenance being done. We cut the amount of pay that is going to janitors. We cut all these support services and then we say, "Now we are going to let you self-manage. As you self-manage, you will be able to resolve these problems". It has not just started. It started under the previous Education Minister and has been going for some time, as indeed has this discussion about self-management been going for some time. My point is: Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

There has been a very recent Public Accounts Committee report. It is a very good and thorough report that I think Ms Follett should be proud of, as other members of the Public Accounts Committee should be proud of it, recommending how to deal with voluntary contributions. The paper that we have in front of us is from, I think, May last year. We would hardly expect the Minister to have responded about voluntary contributions. But I think in his reply he should recognise that the report of the Public Accounts Committee is on the table and should give an indication to this Assembly that the Government is going to respond positively to the very sensible recommendations that have come out of that Public Accounts Committee inquiry. There are real issues about voluntary contributions which were an issue during the election campaign and which were not mentioned in his speech on government schooling.

Then we get to the issue of monitoring numeracy and literacy and what is the best system for numeracy and literacy. Monitoring is one thing; but, if you really want to resolve numeracy and literacy problems, if you think there are problems there, then you ought to look at what is the best way to deal with them. I have had the pleasure of being associated with one of my children's friends whose parents are in Canberra for a short while on sabbatical from Calgary. This seven-year-old has moved from a class of 17 in Calgary to a class of 31 in Canberra - nearly double the size class. One has to ask: If you really want to deal with issues of literacy and numeracy, are you going to pick up the pieces or are you going to have class sizes that recognise the most important single factor in ensuring education for the children who are going to have most difficulty? The size of the class is the single most important factor. We all know that, and we know that in some economies that are very similar to ours - and Canada is a very good example to draw a comparison with - they can manage classes where the maximum in primary school is 20 and where the maximum in high school is 25.

This is the major issue. It is not an issue of how we monitor; it is an issue of how we deliver. But, if we are going to monitor, let us also deal with this issue of productivity. Let us say that we do monitor numeracy and literacy. If teachers continue to improve the numeracy and literacy of our children, will they then be paid a productivity gain because they have increased the productivity of our children? Does that not seem the rational way to go? Are you prepared to wear that? I would greatly appreciate an answer on that because I am aware that the Australian Council for Educational Research, ACER, has monitored numeracy and literacy in the Australian Capital Territory for quite a number of years; going back, I think, to the mid-1950s. Their reports are constantly of improved numeracy and literacy across the spectrum. In spite of the fact that there are

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .