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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 302 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

That is why the Greens were very concerned and talked to Mr Stefaniak to get some kind of meeting, a forum, with all the interest groups. That happened. We were glad to see at least some response. When I listened to the round table discussions that resulted from that initiative, it was quite clear that the homework had not been done initially and that a pulling back occurred after the people who are involved in the work had discussions with Mr Stefaniak and his bureaucrats. I am still concerned about how sport has been focused on and what it is actually going to mean for all students. I have a sense that the focus is still very strongly elitist.

After that, the school-based management discussion paper came out. Once again, it was not well researched. The study that was quoted seemed to have been taken from a magazine article in the United States. If you do any reading on the subject of school-based management - there is plenty to read about in the UK and in New Zealand, and I have made this point to Mr Stefaniak several times - you will know that the real thing that suffers with school-based management being devolved too much is equity. Surely, if in education we do not have as a major focus equity, equal access for all students, then our society is going to suffer. The people who are less likely to be able to reach good education will suffer the most.

The outcomes statement that you have produced for budget consultation is interesting, to say the least. In the supporting outcomes for education and training, you refer to the ability of parents to choose the schooling most suitable to the needs of their children. That is a loaded statement when you look at it with your focus on applying the market model to education. It is of extreme concern to the Greens that that is a supporting outcome when there is not a supporting outcome that mentions just as strongly equity of access by all to high-quality education.

I will briefly touch on the question of productivity. Jobs in the education system have had to go because education has to show productivity. The unions are arguing very strongly that there is going to be an overall decline in the quality of education if this proceeds. We support that claim. We need to implement recommendations that have come out of committees of this place over the years, recommendations which I am reading more and more as my work on the Social Policy Committee increases. For years recommendations have been made about the need for early intervention. You have talked about numeracy and literacy. We are looking at behavioural problems in schools and at numeracy and literacy. Education outcomes are very strongly linked with behavioural problems. Early intervention comes out over and over again as an obvious tack to take. We are not seeing any increase in resources in that area.

We keep hearing about accountability. Accountability is a useful thing to have; but, as Mr Moore pointed out, how do you hold teachers accountable? Maybe you need to look at the quality of teaching, the feeling in the classroom and the ability of students to relate to each other and not just look at numeracy and literacy. Look not at the ability of students to win lots of prizes for their school in sport but at how many students in the school actually can enjoy using their bodies in whatever way. Have accountability, sure, but let us get right how we specify that. I do not think you are using very much more than an economic model.

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