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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1314 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Not surprisingly, with the low enrolment of students at the school, only a limited number of teachers could be provided. This, in turn, limited the capacity of the department to ensure that all students received education in the eight key learning areas considered essential for a proper education. The school lacked facilities, Mr Speaker. This is another important thing in terms of the use of Dickson. The school did not have any science labs, and the facilities for teaching woodwork and metalwork were often not used. I think Mr Hird can speak on that, too. There were some safety and administrative problems which certainly had to be addressed. In addition to the quality of education provided to those students being low, practices which developed at the school both jeopardised students' physical safety and staff wellbeing and put at risk public funds. It seems that much of this grew out of the assumption by general meetings, comprising staff, students, ex-students and parents, that they could run aspects of the school which they had no right or entitlement to run and which it would have been a dereliction of duty for any Education Minister to have allowed them to run.

Members will be interested to know that in 1995 the general meeting purported to authorise students to ride skateboards inside the school building. It took several weeks for the level 2 teacher then in charge, or supposedly in charge, to stop this dangerous practice. The general meeting purported to authorise the spending of public funds for private use. Government purchase orders also were, at times, provided to students. The general meeting also purported to authorise teachers to be absent from school without completing a leave form - not that it mattered much, because another practice which had developed in recent times involved teachers tearing up leave forms upon returning to the school after having taken leave. The general meeting also purported to indicate that students who had not been physically attending the school met the requirements for receipt of Austudy. Since the revelation of this information, an internal inquiry has been established to determine whether any disciplinary proceedings should be undertaken against any staff who have worked at the school.

Mr Speaker, there were attempts to reform the school. My colleague Mr Wood, when he was Minister for Education, recognising some educational and administrative shortcomings of SWOW, decided that a senior level 2 teacher should be appointed to the school from the beginning of 1995 in an effort to address some of these problems. The appointment of that senior level 2 teacher was ardently resisted by some staff, ex-students and students and the general meeting. Despite this, Mr Wood persevered and ensured that the level 2 teacher was introduced. I believe that he was right to do so. Ultimately, however, this strategy failed because of the extreme pressure brought to bear by some staff, ex-students and students, which ranged from obstruction up to a death threat against the teacher. The job was, understandably, too much for any one teacher to take alone, and the level 2 teacher did not reapply to teach at the school in 1996. It would not have been right to ask another teacher to do so.

It is not surprising that, towards the end of 1995, those people associated with the school began to realise that it would not be possible to reform the school as it was presently structured and that this could occur only with additional staff support which could be available only if the school were incorporated within the existing campus of another school. Other methods had failed; and, while no option was closed off, for those who knew the school this option increasingly looked like the only option.

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