Page 4691 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
actually in place and is made to work. Funding cannot and should not be duckshoved between agencies, and mechanisms need to be in place to ensure long-term security for these organisations that deliver important support programs. This is particularly important with the looming efficiency dividend implication which, in education’s case, will be around a $12 million cut to the bottom line.
One of the strong concerns about this change to the school leaving age that I have heard from many educators is that the effective tracking of students may prove to be a very difficult proposition, especially in the non-government sector, and that this will prove to be an onerous side effect of this legislation for the schools and the principals. Who has the ultimate duty of care and will bear the responsibility for these individuals? After my discussions yesterday with Dr Watterston and Ms Vasey, I understand that, whilst ultimate responsibility lies with the parents of the students, there is a need for another mechanism. I understand the metaphor of the baton, whereby education institutions must take responsibility for handing the student over to continue their education journey, and this is key to avoiding the falling through the cracks that could possibly occur.
I look forward to hearing more about the outcomes of the youth commitment agreement that is a work in progress. I understand that this will engage all stakeholders and eventually formulate a more formal agreement or charter that will be a useful tool as we move forward.
I would also like to raise concerns for the record about those students with a disability who will also require extra resources and attention. We know that already the special schools are packed to the rafters with students that are past 17 and 18 years and who have no post-school options. What impact does this have on these schools and these students?
It must be said in this debate and for the record that the opposition will be very reluctant to support any large-scale changes to the college system, such as was mooted by the minister some weeks ago. I will also state for the record that I am amazed that the minister would be so naive to the issues facing the Tasmanian Premier that he would see the benefit in holding up the failing split college system in Tasmania as an example and model for a possible change here in the ACT. With so many glaring problems with this system in Tasmania, I am amazed the minister would even consider that system as a poster child for change. Mr Barr said he had taken a keen interest in the experience of Tasmania in reforming its college system this year. If he had, indeed, been taking a keen interest, he would have noted the arguments put forward by teachers, students and communities and seen words such as “chaos” and “unworkable” used when describing the system.
This is the policy that the Premier, David Bartlett, had said would probably cost him his job at the next election. This is the policy that has seen unprecedented industrial action across the teaching fraternity, who are appalled at the way this system is working and the effect it is having on whole school communities, teachers and students alike. What were you thinking when you flagged this polytechnic concept, minister, and when you stated that it was time to get out of the 70s, through this concept? Many experienced educators have been left shaking their heads in disbelief, as your Tasmanian folly is not a forward looking initiative but a throwback to the 60s.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video