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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 3120 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The second recommendation was that the Department of Education and Training and the Children's, Youth and Family Services Bureau develop intervention programs for students on suspension. The Government response says that the policy is already consistent with this approach. That is surprising because, in semester one 1995, 588 suspensions occurred in ACT government schools and 75 per cent were for violent behaviour. Even if the Government says it is going to have more in-school suspensions, that is a very worrying response. If in response to this committee's recommendations concerning students on suspension you are suddenly going to say, "Well, we will not suspend them any more; we will have in-house suspensions", that must be accompanied by some kind of increase in resources. Obviously, schools do not suspend students for fun. They do it because they cannot cope with those students in the school and they do not have the resources to deal with it. This must be a last resort, or I would certainly hope so. If you are going to suddenly say, "You cannot do that; we will have them in school", it has to be accompanied by some extra resourcing and perhaps more management training as well for the people dealing with it.

If suspension does remain an option, and your response does not say that it will not, we have to stress again that there is grave concern in the community that students who are suspended - 75 per cent of them for violent behaviour - are just left wandering the streets. There is no guarantee that they are going to be looked after by parents. I have been harassed by a student on suspension who wanted to clean my windows for $5, I think it was, and when I said, "Why aren't you at school?", he said, "Oh, I am on suspension". He was having a great time and he was harassing people. So, obviously, that is not the duty of care of the Department of Education being met. The Government has requested a review of the suspension/exclusion policy. We, obviously, would be very interested to know when this will happen and whether or not you will be giving extra resources to deal with this, which is really the end. It is crisis management, once again, where you just throw kids out of a school.

The third recommendation was about examining more flexible and localised models of delivery of behaviour management support and withdrawal programs for primary school students. The Government noted this recommendation. It is seeking to establish a unit for students with severe emotional/behavioural problems at the Yarralumla Centre. This has been a recommendation since 1991. People working in the area, teachers, are very concerned to see that it has just been put off again. The early intervention program at Urambi is funded for 1996, but what about after this year? We are also wondering about Belconnen and Gungahlin, which have needs in this area as well.

The Government claims that 26 primary school students accessed programs in withdrawal units in 1995-96, and 63 students were assisted by student management consultant programs. How long is the waiting list, and what years do these figures represent? Is this over 1995 or 1996? We are glad to see that you are reviewing the timetabling at the Yarralumla Centre. That was obviously a critical need. As for the comment on regionalising the student management consultant service, we are wondering what the waiting time is to get support now. In its response on the alternative educational and

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