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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4592 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the committee had the opportunity to hear first-hand from a number of students and their parents why that alternative option was critically important to them. Students were definitely at risk of dropping out of school altogether if this option had not been available. Some students are very vulnerable because of past traumas in their lives and would not feel safe in a mainstream school. The department has claimed that it supports all these concerns and that, indeed, the integrity of SWOW will not be adversely affected by what they called a refocus.

Through the course of the inquiry it became very clear that inadequate background work had been done, particularly in relation to the relocation to Dickson. It was a "see how it goes and change it accordingly" approach. There was also no guarantee of continued discrete resourcing for SWOW, no guarantee of its own board, no certainty about the role of the principal of Dickson, no certainty about how segregated or integrated the group would be, no research done to show what has worked in other schools in this particular area - that is, integration or segregation. Does segregation cause more targeting of a group or is it actually able to work?

There was no explanation put to the committee of how putting a small group of younger students, many of whom are quite vulnerable, in the middle of a large campus of 600 college-age students would benefit that smaller group of younger students. The review report itself had no argument to support the co-location of SWOW at Dickson. In fact, the review report contradicted some of its own recommendations. It is difficult to see how any committee could support this so-called refocus with such little supporting evidence or information. Mr Speaker, it is well to remember that there is a growing acknowledgment that our predominant school system is failing a number of students, particularly in the middle years. If our education system is to be appropriate and responsive to the needs of all students, it is essential that there be diversity within it. SWOW has offered an alternative and a place to develop new ways of meeting the needs of students.

As I have said, the committee acknowledged concerns in some areas of duty of care and curriculum development for younger students. The department has continued to send younger students to SWOW, however, so the committee was left with questions about why they were continuing to send these young students if they were not happy with the situation. Probably the reason has partly to do with the fact that there was nowhere else for these students. The committee could not see this valuable option put at such risk by such a poorly thought out refocus.

Our first recommendation came directly from the Select Committee on Estimates and it is related to the need for the department to develop a clear policy on community consultation relating to school reviews. This recommendation and our last recommendation - that is, that an independent facilitator be brought in to assist in any unresolved matters between the school community and the department - are in response to the unsatisfactory review process and consequent difficulties in negotiations between the school community and the department.

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