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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1070 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

embarking on with the alternative education program at Dickson. It is truly an alternative program. It is certainly not the same program that has been running at SWOW over the last couple of years. It is a program which provides the best possible education for all the students who need an alternative education option.

I turn now, Mr Speaker, to the main elements of the Government's response. It is important to emphasise that the report of the Social Policy Committee on SWOW is not a unanimous report. There is a strongly dissenting report presented by Mr Harold Hird, one of the three members of the Social Policy Committee at the time. I also take note of Ms Reilly's claim that she had no conflict of interest in her activity as a member of the committee investigating SWOW matters and her other link with SWOW.

The first recommendation, Mr Speaker, is that the Department of Education and Training develop a policy on community consultation relating to school reviews outside the normal school development cycle. The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation and will ask the Department of Education and Training to develop the policy framework on community consultation in school reviews outside the school development process. In fact, Mr Speaker, the Government is already acting along these lines following a recommendation from the Ministerial Advisory Council on Government Schooling in its report of December 1996 on management of secondary school enrolments. Copland College is conducting a review of its operations, with a high level of community consultation. While its review is not outside the school development process, it will, I am sure, Mr Speaker, provide some useful examples of good practice to be considered in the formulation of a policy framework.

However, Mr Speaker, the Government notes that the minority report disagreed with this recommendation and supported the need to review schools in a flexible, responsive manner. We would hope to get this right, Mr Speaker. I would hope we can retain the flexibility required to act quickly and decisively when the occasion demands but also to ensure that, through effective community consultation over time, the demands for urgent action are few and far between.

The second recommendation, Mr Speaker, is that the Department of Education and Training, in the administrative linking of the SWOW program to another school, ensure that the new alternative education program remains a separate entity and is not just swallowed up into the larger organisation. The recommendation also seeks additional resources for the program. Mr Speaker, the Government cannot fully support any recommendation for additional resources for any specific program such as this. We support the view put forward by the minority report that the alternative education program at Dickson College should receive the same level of resourcing as other ACT schools. However, the Government does agree that the alternative program at Dickson should preserve its own identity as far as possible. Mr Speaker, the principal of Dickson College will ultimately be accountable for the education of students enrolled in the alternative education program. The principal will oversee all student and staffing matters, including attendance, welfare, supervision, and assessment and reporting.

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