Page 2910 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Section 20 of the act acknowledges the important role of schools in the lives of individuals and the community. In recognition of this role, the section sets out principles for extensive consultation that the minister for education must undertake before closing or amalgamating a school. In particular, the act calls for consideration of the educational, financial and social impact on students, their families and the general school community. This act was passed by all members of the Assembly, the Greens and the opposition included. They voted in favour of this legislation.
The only possible result of Dr Foskey’s amendment would be to introduce an arbitrary delay in the implementation of the government’s Towards 2020 proposal and duplicate the community safeguards which are already embedded in the legislation. Dr Foskey’s bill calls for a moratorium on school closures until 1 January 2008. However, Dr Foskey has not provided the Assembly with any substantive educational, social or financial reasons why she believes such a delay is necessary.
I certainly do not undervalue the pride and passion people feel for their schools. But, along with its role of responding to the community, the government has an important stewardship role and should put forward proposals and policy that it believes will benefit the whole community, both now and in the future. While the decision to propose these education reforms is not an easy one, and certainly not a universally popular one, it is nonetheless what the government believes is the best course of action for the Canberra community. We cannot stay frozen with indecision.
If we want our current and future students to have access to education second to none, we must have the courage and foresight to adapt our education system to meet the emerging needs of our community. Rather than giving comfort to the communities concerned about the future of their schools, the primary effect of Dr Foskey’s proposed amendment would be to create an extended period of uncertainty, disruption and greater anxiety for our students and their families.
As I have continued to engage in the six-month community consultation process on the Towards 2020 proposal, I have been approached by individuals and communities who, rather than wanting the process to be extended, have asked me to move more quickly to implement proposed closures and amalgamations immediately, rather than have communities face long periods of not knowing about the future of their schools. Prolonging the wait for answers would have a detrimental impact. It would hinder the ability of students, family and staff to plan future pathways, and it would discourage the community from engaging with schools facing an uncertain future.
Dr Foskey’s other proposed amendment is to prevent the minister from closing or amalgamating a school unless a comprehensive analysis has been made of the educational, financial and social impact of the proposed closure or amalgamation on students at the school. Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, I am at a loss for the necessity of its inclusion, given that the Education Act already states:
Before closing or amalgamating a government school, the Minister must—
(a) have regard to the educational, financial and social impact on students at the school, the students’ families and the general school community;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .