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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1943 ..

Ms Tucker: In the long term, we said - ongoing productivity.

MRS CARNELL: No; even in the long term. The productivity matters that are on the table include having developmental activities in stand-down time. That means that, in the six weeks' paid time every year, teachers are required to do at least five days of their developmental activity.

Ms Tucker: They said that they will look at that.

MRS CARNELL: I am sorry; I am going through every one of them because you made the comment. The five days' developmental activities are in paid stand-down time. For the life of me, I cannot see how that is going to affect class sizes or teacher numbers. The next one is for casual relief rates - the rates that we pay casual relief teachers, particularly casual relief teachers that do very little amounts of work - to be brought down to the same sort of level as in New South Wales. It is very hard for me to see how that can make any difference to teacher numbers or class sizes. The next is supervision of student teachers - teachers in departments to undertake supervision of student teachers as part of their duties. Actually, I do not think the teachers union has a problem with that. Again, it is very hard to work out how that means fewer teachers and larger class sizes.

There was an item for outcomes and reporting - implement measures consistent with the ACT curriculum frameworks to provide reporting of student outcomes on a system-wide basis for two year levels in the primary sector in 1997 and two year levels in the secondary school sector in 1998. It is very hard to see how that can do anything except improve the situation. School-based management is, again, an item that the teachers union is actually discussing with us at this stage; but there are no views on cutting teacher numbers and those sorts of things. The next one is sale of departmental assets. That was the sale of Charnwood High, and some of the money from that was going back into the education budget. Those are the items that were in one of the offers that were knocked back. To my knowledge, absolutely definitely, not one of those items could have produced a bigger class size or fewer teacher numbers.

Other items have subsequently been put onto the table - things like a review of the current level 1 teachers salary scale. Again, that could not produce fewer teachers or bigger class sizes. Another item was introduction of a graduate teacher classification to assist the lower age profile, reduce the salary payments and structures required for the employment of young teachers, to try to get more young teachers into our teaching service. Again, that could not, in any way, produce a larger class size or fewer teachers. So, I think it is very important, when we debate these issues, that we actually do debate them on the facts.

Mr Moore: Stick with the facts, then. What per cent will that deliver?

MRS CARNELL: That was actually an offer that would deliver the full 3 per cent. So, it would deliver 10.1 per cent, the same as for other - - -

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