Page 4317 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The most recent data from the program for international student assessments, or PISA, which tests 15-year-old students, shows that nearly 25 per cent of these students from low income families do not achieve expected international proficiency standards. Overall, the proportion of low socioeconomic status students not achieving expected levels is about five times that of high socioeconomic status students. Suspending students in this situation for lengthy periods will not help to close the achievement gap.
There are alternatives to long suspensions. Rather than continuing to further isolate the students, the Greens would like to see more emphasis placed on reintegrating students into schools through programs that are run and overseen by the student support section at the Department of Education and Training, the use of restorative justice practices and in-school suspensions. Under restorative justice practices, keeping the parties involved at the source of the problem goes a long way to undoing or healing harm and maintaining relationships. The teaching of social, interpersonal and anger management skills is also an important tool which has been shown to prevent problem behaviour.
I note that the scrutiny report on the proposed amendments raises the issue in relation to section 11(2) of the Human Rights Act as to sufficient weight being given to “the right of the child to the protection needed by the child because of being a child”. It also notes that the amendment will have the effect of reducing the period in which there will be a review of the need for a suspension and for arrangements to be made in consequence of the suspension.
As I said, Mr Speaker, we understand that in some cases there is a need to suspend students for a range of reasons and the processes are in place to do this. Indeed, if the suspension has to be extended beyond five days, there are processes in place under section 36 of the Education Act to enable this to be done. I quote from section 36(2)(a) of the Education Act 2004:
The principal may recommend to the chief executive that the chief executive—
(a) suspend the student from the school for a stated period of not longer than 20 days …
What happens is that a student can be suspended for five days. If they wish to increase that they would need to fill out some paperwork showing that there is a need to increase the suspension and then they can apply for another five days or another 10 days, up to 20 days. So already in the act there is this option available that principals can take up.
Our concern is that the 10-day option may become the easy option. Simply removing the student does little to address a problem that must be confronted as quickly as possible for the sake of all parties. Any suspension, but particularly a 10-day suspension, will put disadvantaged children, and indeed all children, well behind in terms of achieving reasonable educational standards. It will impose considerable pressure on families, carers and the community sector. The Greens believe that this amendment does not put the child’s welfare at the centre of the issue. We are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .