Page 524 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Looking at those figures, you have to wonder why we are seeking to go beyond five days to 15 days. But, that’s right; it is an ALP election commitment.
Research by the University of Melbourne of 4,000 year 7 and 9 students in Victoria and Washington State in the US has shown, and I have quoted from this before, that suspension increases the risk of academic problems, school disengagement and dropout, participation in crime and delinquency and alcohol and drug use. In regard to those being suspended, students from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds are over-represented in national statistics of suspended students and Indigenous students are more likely to be excluded from school than students from other cultures. I pick up on someone who texted in to Ross Solly’s program this morning, the parent of a child with autism who was concerned about those with autism spectrum disorder or ADHD.
I again raise the issue of the impact suspensions have in the case of children in care. It is hard enough on those families with a stable environment at home, but working through the issues around suspension with children in care is very hard in a lot of cases. We are short of foster and kinship carers in the ACT and many are in full-time or part-time work and have difficulty in getting the time to cope with supervising a student during a suspension.
We are concerned with the impact this change will have on children identified as at risk by care and protection. This is one of the most vulnerable and underachieving groups of all children and any chance they have to build a sound future hinges around good educational outcomes. Long periods away from school will impact on future employment prospects and, potentially, physical and mental health.
The argument from the Liberals has been that we should just fall in line with other jurisdictions and let principals do their job. The ACT Greens are not saying we do not trust principals to do their job at all. The principals do a great job and we understand they need to suspend students from time to time. Mr Barr’s statistics on suspensions show that principals obviously do a great job in handling most situations in schools and only have to suspend a small percentage of students. They do an even better job in relation to long-term suspensions, with only three cases in the last 12 months where suspension beyond five days was warranted.
Mr Barr himself noted in the debate on this issue last year that it is worth noting that there has not been an increase in bullying and violence in our schools. Between July 2007 and March 2009 there has been a general downward trend in the number of critical incidents. So why, if the election promise centred around making schools safer, is a longer suspension period necessary? I believe it is far more sensible to run the 12-month suspension support pilot first and look at the outcomes before any consideration is given to the proposed amendment.
The ACT Greens say again that the principals have the option to suspend for longer than five days under section 36(2)(a) of the Education Act. 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 principals to do so. I quote from this part of the act:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .