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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3249 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

By the way, I have written to the P and C Council and objected to the simple use of the word "parent" all the way through, as they have done here. They slip more into parent, home-community and generalities. I am not just having a go at the department for the specific use of that word. I am sure that it can be amended by way of a definition. I am not upset just about that. The picture I am trying to paint is that, unless we have some idea of how schools deal with the parents who do not fit the mould of supporting in a clear-cut way what the school wants, then we are condemned to continue to have a small, but significant, problem with children who do not acquire literacy skills.

What we need to see from the department is how it deals with that myriad of complex problems that arise when you have homes where literacy is perhaps not valued or where literacy skills are quite different from those that are needed in the school, where a different language is spoken, where there are stressed families - a whole range of things where you cannot rely on the home to provide that support. When that starts to happen, then we know that those children are not going to succeed to the same level as our other children are. I am not assured that those issues are taken up with sufficient seriousness in the Government's paper.

The home-school partnership in literacy development paper begins to tackle some of those things, but it is absolutely crucial that we do further work on how schools deal with those non-participating parents. We cannot leave children in the situation - this is the "blame the victim" syndrome - where, if they have a problem with home, that problem continues in school and no-one is there to pick them up and say, "No matter what your background is, it is none of our business. You are here to learn, and we will do everything we can to ensure that you learn to read and write". That is what I would like to see. It is sensitive and complex, I understand. But I think, without it, we cannot be assured that our children in greatest need will be dealt with.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (4.41): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I certainly would not disagree with what Ms McRae is aiming to tap into, or aiming to improve, and I think that is something that this paper and the whole debate about literacy will actually do. It is something which the testing we have done at Years 3 and 5 now will enable us to do, which in some instances we were not able to do before; that is, pick up kids who otherwise would have fallen through the gaps and develop appropriate teaching methods, strategies and programs to assist them, which were not necessarily there before.

I should say, to start with, that, in developing this discussion paper, the department sought wide-ranging specialist and expert advice. I am a little bit amazed in terms of just how Ms McRae interpreted parts of it, saying there were parts lacking. I do not necessarily think that is so. We did seek wide-ranging specialist and expert advice. In fact, the person who designed it was referred to us by the teachers who specialise in literacy. It was their association which proposed the person who designed the paper. It is a substantial statement on literacy programs and practices in ACT schools. This paper covers the years from preschool to Year 10.

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