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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3247 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

not comforting, in that one is not sure that teachers are always treating the students before them as potentially not fitting the mould of having two loving parents and a good, literate home. They may or may not live in those circumstances, and the mere use of such language gives rise for concern.

The second issue is what the department does when the circumstances are such that the home background does not support the effort of the school. This is of extreme importance. What we see discussed in the P and C paper and what we hear from the debate around the whole issue of literacy testing is that it is that link that seems to be the crucial factor. But that is fraught with difficulty. If we start to say that only a good home background will produce literacy results, then we are in a situation where we are blaming the victim. Is it the child's fault that they live in a house where perhaps literacy is not valued? Is it the child's fault that they come from a low socioeconomic background? Is it the child's fault that their parents actually speak and read and write a completely different language and are not supportive? We do not see any sensitive coverage of that within the Government's paper.

We see some reference to Koori children, we see some reference to the extra assistance that may be needed, but we do not see what responsibility the school takes when it is quite clear that the home background, for whatever reason, does not fit a mainstream idea of what a good literacy background is. It could fall into the situation of abrogation of responsibility by the department and some form of blaming the victim that in some way stigmatises the child if the expectation always is that the child takes home material to read with mummy and daddy, to read to mummy and daddy, and that the child lives in a situation where the parents are there to actually listen and participate in the literacy program. Those are the assumptions that seem to be inherent in successful literacy outcomes, according to the literacy paper. We know that it is not correct. We know that there is no sensitivity to that variation being shown in the Government's paper. I think warning bells are ringing. We need to know, we need to be assured, that those children who will not be getting the support at home are dealt with appropriately within the school.

When we look at how the Government paper actually deals with it and what are the actual strategies, we find that they do very good things within the school. It then talks about learning assistance and consideration of distribution of learning assistance money, all within the school. Then in point 7 it talks about parent tutor programs. They are excellent programs. There is not a problem. But what about the child whose parent is unable to participate; what about the child whose parent may speak a different language; what about the child whose carers, guardians or family simply cannot avail themselves of that program? That is when the warning bells start to ring and you say, "What is going on here? Have we just a standard expectation of how children learn, of who supports their learning and of what our outcomes are going to be?". Point 8 is that the P and C is to be funded to do a suitable publication. Again, that strategy includes the word "parents", not the home-community link, and in no way takes into account the sensitivities that the P and C paper is much more thorough about.

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