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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4596 ..

MS REILLY (continuing):

The impression you get from talking to the Education Department officials and the school community and looking at the previous reviews is that there has been no organised strategic plan to address the problems and issues that have been raised in relation to SWOW. In fact, it appears that a number of ad hoc actions were taken at various times that have had no follow-up. There are various things that could be looked at in previous years, but I will not go over those in detail. I am quite sure that the Minister is aware of them. These were ad hoc actions that do not seem to have been followed through. When one thing does not work, all stops. Then you try another thing, and then you try another thing; but there is no strategy. There is no plan to look at how any concerns that may have been raised in previous reviews could be addressed.

I think this is one of the characteristics of the current review that was undertaken by the Education Department. Even though there now has been a steering committee set up, because of the nature of the review and the way it was carried out, it is very difficult for that steering committee to work together. One of the important parts of the inquiry by the committee was the difficulties that have arisen from the steering committee. Rather than everybody trundling along, following their own barrows, you should get a facilitator to try to bring the various views together. The inquiry needs to look at the details of those responses. I think it is a pity that the response by Mr Hird, in his report, does not take account of what is being achieved by this inquiry.

It was an opportunity for everybody involved with the SWOW community to put a point of view at a public hearing and to find a solution to what is, for some of the people involved in the SWOW community, a very traumatic process. Rather than a knee-jerk reaction that has typified some of the previous reviews of SWOW, this should be an opportunity to find a solution; to look at the SWOW community, to look at what SWOW is providing in terms of alternative education in the ACT, and to ensure that that can continue, and continue in a better way.

One of the characteristics mentioned in a number of the submissions is the size of the school and the importance of that in a large education system. To take that small group of students and co-locate them at a larger school like Dickson College, where you have a number of different characteristics such as age and the sizes of the SWOW community and Dickson College, and to think this might work, is to take a very short-sighted view of what is happening at SWOW at this time. One of the things that were argued strongly in this inquiry was the relocation to Dickson College. I think it is a pity that this particular recommendation is not being looked at carefully; that there is not going to be a response relating to the physical location of SWOW. Obviously, a number of issues have been raised in relation to SWOW over the years, and these are being addressed through the recommendations of this inquiry, but it needs to look at the relocation to Dickson College and the resources that will be attached to that relocation.

Already we have two instances in the ACT school system as a whole where programs that were targeted at special needs children within the high schools have failed. They have failed through lack of resources and through the teachers involved not being fully supported. What is going to be important with any refocusing of SWOW is its physical location and its resources. I urge the Government to look at these closely when they consider this report. I urge support from members for this report.

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