Page 2794 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
has time and an opportunity again to re-engage with this project. The curriculum framework is, however, a step back towards a more centralised system that could prove to be a very good thing if that system can provide the necessary increased support. But it is not going to work if teachers are left to fend for themselves. And that is certainly a risk.
Whatever the status of the 2020 plan, the work of the department has already begun. It is a massive project involving the amalgamation and closure of numerous schools, the relocation of special units, the change to the priority enrolment areas for many other schools, the reconfiguration of a large number of preschools, primary and secondary schools, and secondary colleges, all to be managed in the next year. I would like to take my next 10 minutes, thank you.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go ahead, Dr Foskey.
DR FOSKEY: As part of the process, the government has assured concerned parents that the transition will be individually managed. The demands will be exponentially greater from students living with disability. Those who are at real risk of social exclusion or unsatisfactory educational outcomes, as I have pointed out, will be disproportionately affected. Furthermore, this profound system-wide change is to be effected in an intense, pressured and, for many people, unhappy environment.
On top of that, the department, with these complex responsibilities, faces massive staff cuts of about 90 out of 350, or more than a quarter. I do not see how it can hope to effectively manage the complex array of changes affecting every dimension of its work. There must be a lot of very unhappy, very stressed people in the education department at the moment, especially seeing that the department was engaged in some constructive work in the lead-up to the budget which had the aim of growing and strengthening public education in the ACT.
I have talked about the education 2010 project before now, and Mrs Dunne referred to it tonight. It seemed to have enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the then minister for education and would have been launched with a discussion paper and a series of seminars on topics ranging from sustainability in the system to emerging technologies. Education 2010 emerged from the department’s own strategic plan which itself had stakeholder input for the previous 16 months. There were probably quite high hopes for that approach to gain wide community support, and indeed it had that potential.
If the minister asked me in the Assembly to tell him what I would do, I would say that I would talk to his education department. I note that the department is continuing with the seminar series but I am sorry that the context of seminars such as Government schooling: looking into the future so overwhelmed the content. I am aware that the department of education has put considerable resources into support for young people at risk of unsatisfactory educational outcomes. There have been many successful programs inside the department to improve engagement with people facing social exclusion. The notion of full-service schools has been explored with schools. Community programs and the use of equity funding had all made a difference to the lives of many people whose children attend local schools. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the rate of change predicated by this plan has prevented the department from using its expertise to understand and manage the social impact of these changes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .