Page 4144 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But this is not an Australian study. It was a summary note on American research which found in favour of small schools. The committee wrote to Professor Caldwell asking about the provenance of the research paper and its relevance to the ACT. Professor Caldwell informed the committee that he had:
… not advised on the applicability of these research findings on school size in the ACT or Australian context. More particularly there is no evidence to support a conclusion that primary schools of less than 300-400 students are necessarily less educationally effective because of their size.
To formally decide to close a school on the basis of a document which in every sense is not what you claim it to be would appear to indicate a failure of rigour and process. In other words, the key educational justification that the minister offered the committee and the Canberra community for closing so many schools was a hollow one. It makes me question the level of regard given to the educational impact these decisions would have on students that the Education Act requires.
Similarly, I was surprised at the lack of any real social impact analysis. I raised the matter with the minister in a public hearing of the committee and was advised to refer to the statements of reasons. Those statements make some cursory acknowledgement of community concern regarding the social impact of school closures. They do not provide evidence of any deeper analysis of the impacts.
When I questioned the minister on the methodology that he employed in having regard to the social impact on students at the school, the students’ families and the general school community, the committee was advised that he had “nothing further to add to what was provided in accordance with the Education Act and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act”.
When decisions of such local significance are taken and when the relevant legislation requires due regard to be paid to the range of social impacts of those decisions, to simply dodge the question as to how that impact was considered was feeble to say the least. It is certainly profoundly insulting to those communities who are still feeling those social impacts.
Consequently, the committee sought advice from an expert in social impact analysis. Dr Ziller was not familiar with the Towards 2020 proposal. That was important because the committee was seeking guidance on the discipline and structure that should be brought to a professional social impact analysis, unaffected by personal views of the need or impact of the decisions themselves.
I refer members to the committee report and the transcript of the hearing in July. Dr Ziller described a detailed, thoughtful process that would look at the make-up of communities in fine detail, carefully consider the objectives and potential impacts of proposals, and use the process both to guide community engagement and to shape any mitigation strategies.
In regard to the document which the minister pointed to as the evidence of this consideration of social impact, Dr Ziller’s comment was simply that she “could not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .