Page 2233 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
had a one size fits all model. So the government felt that it would be appropriate to go to public consultation with a view to putting the 7 to 12 model into the mix. It is not proposed that that be the model for everyone and that that be the only model available. But the question I have to ask the opposition is: what is wrong with having some choice? Many parents and many students have come forward in the consultation process and indicated that the transition from year 10 to year 11, and into a new school model and a change in culture, can be difficult for some students. It is certainly the case that there are strengths within the 7 to 12 model around continuity of education.
Again, as I indicated to the Assembly yesterday, what is wrong with having the debate? What is wrong with putting these issues on the table? Surely we can, as a mature Assembly and a mature community, engage in debate about having some choice in our secondary education models. Surely we can do that. Surely we are mature enough to undertake such a debate. The government’s view is that by putting forward these proposals, and they are proposals and we have put forward a range of options, we can engage in that debate. In some communities the opportunity for a 7 to 12 school, not in opposition to colleges but to complement the college system, is something that has been welcomed and we will continue to engage on those issues.
I think that it is reasonable and fair, when there are so many 7 to 12 models within the private system, that the government be able to offer a similar education model, given the size of our system. Surely we can do that, or we can at least explore it in the context of this education debate. That is what the government is seeking to do and I do not resile from that at all. If you do look further into that review of colleges you will see that it did fundamentally agree with the college system, and the government does not propose to change that, but it did also highlight a range of issues and a range of transitional difficulties that some students find in the move from a more structured environment at the year 10 level to a changed arrangement and a degree of additional freedom that occurs for students when they change to years 11 and 12.
Some students do not cope particularly well with that change. We are seeking to put forward the possibility of an alternative model within the government system, one that operates very successfully in the private system at the moment. But that is not to say that 7 to 12 is unheard of. It operates successfully in the private system at the moment. The question I pose to those members who are interested in engaging in this education debate is: can we look at a 7 to 12 model? If not, why not?
MR STEFANIAK: I have a supplementary question. Minister, given the opposition of parents as expressed at the meetings that you and I attended, will you rule out the proposal to establish years 7 to 12 schools?
MR BARR: No, it would be pre-emptive to rule out 7 to 12 models. We are in the middle of a consultation period. I have said at those public meetings that, if there was not strong community support, of course the government would not seek to foist a 7 to 12 model on a community that did not want it. Obviously, members of the opposition have not been able to attend all of the meetings I have. Clearly, they have been sharing them round, as is their wont. I have been attending all of the meetings. I have been engaging with all of the communities, more than the rest of you combined, and I am receiving the sort of feedback that a 7 to 12 model may be appropriate in certain settings in the city and that there is a view that there is room in our public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .