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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 17 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

the class. That is not to say that they are all like that, but it stood out as an example of something which was being done much better than we did it. My memory of it was that the class had a variety of students - from those with profound disabilities to those with lesser disabilities, though in need of specialist care.

Mr Speaker, the shame of this report is that we have to point to the condition of buildings from which we provide these services and the level of training available for teachers and other staff members within our system. In this day and age, we should not be making recommendations such as recommendation 18, which reads:

How is it that in the year 2000 we are making recommendations along those lines? It is clear that somebody has taken their eye off the ball if we have to make those sorts of recommendations. It is appalling that a committee of this Assembly has had its attention drawn to the lack of training for teachers and other staff who provide services to students with disabilities. I suspect, Mr Speaker, that that is because most of those who made submissions to us did so with full commitment but were less vociferous publicly than other areas of education or other areas of services might be. They go about the business of looking after their families quietly; indeed, more quietly than they should, given the circumstances which exist within our education system for students with disabilities.

Another appalling example of the level of services provided in the ACT is the condition of some of the buildings. It is true that, if we were starting again, some of these buildings might not be used for the purposes for which they are used, so I am not going to be especially critical of a particular establishment. But you have only to visit a few to come to the conclusion that something is wrong with the buildings in terms of the services they provide. Buildings and surroundings where the topography is completely unsuitable were witnessed in our committee inspections at these places.

It is also important that we understand that it is unlikely that these schools will be relocated or rebuilt, but you have to keep in mind the necessity to choose appropriate buildings for students with disabilities. These buildings may well have been suitable for the services they provided some time ago and in keeping with the standards that existed in other places; but when you look at them now and consider the services that are provided you cannot help coming to the conclusion that something is wrong.

For example, we had our attention drawn to the condition of playground equipment at Cranleigh School. Playground equipment for students with disabilities is extremely important, absolutely fundamental to the provision of quality education services. Some of the Cranleigh playground equipment - in fact, most of it, on my recollection of it - was

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