Page 2975 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in our young children. My opposition to this sort of practice remains. As I said, it was one of two issues that drove me to enter the campaign and get elected to this place.
However, I do acknowledge that a bit of brief research yesterday has shown that primary schools in my area of town have average class sizes in the mid 20s. Similarly, I have spoken to a teacher at a local high school where class sizes seem to average around the 25 to 30 mark, and I think this is a reasonably acceptable range. I am not particularly convinced that 21 is a magic number. I think that, as long as class sizes are kept at a reasonable level—and by “reasonable” I mean in the 20s—we can achieve a very good outcome for our children. By way of across-the-chamber comment, I said to the minister that at my first school there were about 74 people in the class. It shows that there has been considerable progress.
It was interesting that, when speaking to this teacher, he said that it was important to recognise that each class was different and that, whilst one group of 25 or even 30 students was manageable, with another group a much greater level of individual attention was needed. I agree with the Liberal Party that class sizes are important, and I recognise that there is a body of academic evidence that backs up this point. I have looked at a range of these studies, some of which the minister said were a bit dated. The source of some of this research is the Australian Education Union, so it may not be an entirely objective presentation of research. When you look at the work of Mitchell in 1989, Project Prime Time in Indiana, Project STAR in Tennessee, Baines’s research from 1992, the Burke study from Melbourne and Professor Campbell’s study in Brisbane, you see that there is quite a deal of evidence that suggests that lower class sizes can deliver better educational outcomes.
It is important to note that class size is not the only issue to be addressed when it comes to improving the public education system. The government’s point that it has made repeatedly in light of the Liberal Party’s election promise, that it is investing in infrastructure and quality of our teachers, is well made. You cannot expect quality education results unless you have properly remunerated teachers and state-of-the-art facilities. Notwithstanding my well-reported views about industrial relations and wage pressure, I have consistently believed that teachers have not been remunerated at a level that is appropriate. It is one area of public expenditure in particular where I would like to see a greater allocation of funds, because nothing is more crucial than educating the next generation of young Canberrans. If we do not pay teachers competitive amounts, let us not be surprised when we do not attract the most able and brightest young people to that profession.
The quality of a student’s education is likely to depend not just on the size of their class but on the facilities that are available to that class and the standard of the teacher that is in charge of the group.
I acknowledge the final two points of Mr Seselja’s motion and policy. I believe that the policy of enticing mature age people with appropriate backgrounds and experience into the teaching profession could be of some use. I remember Mrs Dunne advocating this idea some time ago and I think it has merit. I must say that I am not sure how many are going to take up the offer, but it is worth giving it a go. Similarly, offering a number of HECS forgiveness scholarships to top graduates may attract some teachers to Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .