Page 3779 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
words, the government has not actually addressed its decision to abandon the existing preschool system.
My office looked through the ACT government’s website to see what kind of general advice and discussion is offered on the large number of preschool closures that are a part of this 2020 proposal, and we could not find any discussion at all. It is only by trawling through the descriptions of the plan by school region that you can find a paragraph in which school closures are listed. By the way, I note that the school region plan lists the soon to be closed Reid preschool as having 11 enrolments in 2006, while the department’s August census has counted 21. Let us not forget that the minister advised the Assembly that all the figures on the website are absolutely accurate. My concern is not that the government has got a few figures wrong. It is that in whipping up its Towards 2020 plan it did not bother to put together a section addressing plans for preschools comprehensively or even generally. It is a sector of its own.
Supplementary papers added to the site discuss the growing links between primary schools and preschools. They highlight the smorgasbord of options that will be offered and talk up the cooperative school, a school built on close parental involvement that will be undermined by a forced amalgamation with a very big school that does not even want them. It is not an impressive or convincing approach.
To return to the time frame issue, let us pretend the complete absence of a detailed rationale for the reorganisation of preschools is simply an oversight and there is general agreement among stakeholders that the planned changes are all for the good. We then have to ask why all the closures and changes are happening in this very difficult time frame. Given the absence of any other explanation, it must be either that the government believes it will save more money the more quickly it acts, something highly contested by the preschool community, or it is taking the view that, as most kids are only in preschool for a year, the disruption will be temporary and if it acts now the pain will be over in time for the next election.
The government is hiding behind a report that it is choosing not to release. It has pursued a process that is legal but unresponsive. It has played with the notion of consultation in order to limit, rather than expand, transparency. The ACT has had the strongest preschool sector in Australia. It has been built up in partnership with parents and preschool communities. It is most unfortunate that the government is not prepared to work in partnership with them now, when the most significant changes that the sector has ever faced are coming into place.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (3.43): Mrs Dunne’s motion recognises the importance of preschool education and early childhood education, and Mr Barr, in supporting the first three clauses of the motion, recognises this. I know that there are many different views on preschool education. I fall into the camp of not being a supporter of compulsory preschool education, even though my first son went through preschool, the second is currently at preschool and the youngest will go to preschool as well.
I certainly recognise the value of preschools; most in the community do. That is evidenced by the fairly high take-up rate in the ACT. That is not to say that it is for everyone at that particular age of around four years. Certainly, it is very important and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .