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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 8 Hansard (28 October) . . Page.. 2326 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

All the decisions the Government has taken this year in relation to staffing of preschools and how many classes there would be at preschools were made as a result of those particular enrolment factors agreed to with the preschool community and stakeholders last year. Mr Speaker, I table those preschool enrolment factors.

Mr Berry might have mentioned repeats. I have spoken with a lady from Downer Preschool who has assured me that her child will be repeating. I accept that. There is one other child whose parents indicated that they wished their child to repeat. Repeats are decided at the end of third term, again on the 1997 consensus worked out with the community. They are then assessed. For obvious reasons, repeats are not taken into account when allocating staff. In any one year 100 students may be assessed as being able to repeat but the figures have shown over the years that only about one in six actually ultimately repeat. The reasons for that are obvious. Students assessed early as repeating students can show remarkable improvement in a very short space of time. I have a preschooler myself, and I have seen that with my little bloke. If a student shows improvement, say, in term 4, the parents may then decide there is no point in that child repeating. That is a significant factor. Quite obviously, prior to 1997 the cut-off date of July was far too early, because children still had six months to develop. For every 110 places the department offers to students annually, only about 100 will be taken. We are not exactly sure of the reasons for that. People might move out of an area; people might move into an area.

Those are very relevant factors in determining a cut-off date and determining the arrangements for preschools in the new year. To arbitrarily look at other factors after agreed cut-off dates, factors such as extra kids one month down the track, throws out a system which has been agreed to right across the sector. I suppose the question is: Where does it stop? Any of the 22 preschools could say, "We are not really happy with that. The situation has changed for us". Where do you have a cut-off date?

Some order in the system is absolutely essential. When the Government looked very closely at that, we got back to the fact that we had an agreed set of criteria and, might I say, a fair set of criteria. I think everyone who has been involved in the preschool sector for any period will appreciate that they are a lot fairer than in the past and much more responsive to the needs of parents and conducive to efficiency and good running of the sector.

This is not about whether children are being deprived of an education. The decision on Downer Preschool is a well-considered decision. It takes into account a range of factors agreed in an extensive consultation process. We all agree that preschool is a critical part of education. We all agree that every child is entitled to a quality preschool education, and that is something our excellent system in Canberra produces. This is not a debate about the quality of preschool education. It is not even about the quality of access to preschool education. It is really about whether we as a government can rely on agreed factors in exercising responsible management in providing quality preschool education with fair and equitable access across the preschool system.

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