Page 4675 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Where are the reassurances that these cuts can meet the present and future demand for school support services? And in the example of the counsellor positions, why the initial four positions and then a change to two after Monday’s community consultations? Where is the evidence supporting any of these decisions, Mr Barr? This is made more sinister when a large share of these cuts involves positions that support students with disabilities and special needs and members of marginalised communities.
Education is the great leveller and enabler in our society. That is why the government needs to invest in the people element of our public schools. The support services being cut not only allow disabled and marginalised students to excel in school and life but also allow our teachers to be the best they can be in helping our children succeed. All too often, we hear of teachers having to work harder and harder in an under-appreciated profession. What kinds of thoughtful consultations would presuppose that a regular classroom teacher could teach braille, ESL and sign language, all at the same time?
Equally, the emphasis on new technologies like text-to-speech programs for visually impaired students as opposed to braille has caused consternation amongst parents of blind children. The government would learn of this if it had bothered to solicit community feedback before internally proposing service cuts. And I am sure that if the relevant support teachers were truly heard in the government’s internal consultations they would advise that, unlike braille, speech output programs do not teach reading and writing skills to visually impaired students. In other words, the government would be, in essence, promoting illiteracy.
The backflip on these proposed cuts only occurred because of community outcry, highlighting the ludicrousness of these cuts. Noting the efficiency dividend review Q&A posted online, the government envisioned that technology will take up some of the slack from the support services. If there was anything to be learnt from Minister Barr’s backflip on the Shepherd Centre, it was that a cochlear implant can allow a child to hear but that child still needs support in developing communication skills.
In short, technology is a learning aid. It is not, nor should it be, a panacea for teaching. You cannot replace teachers with technology, Mr Speaker. Our labour market has changed. As we move further along the path of being a knowledge economy, education is no longer a guarantee to moving up in life; it merely qualifies you to enter the job market.
The proposed cuts are telling: roughly speaking, 40 proposed reductions in departmental branches with support and/or student responsibilities, as opposed to 11.5 proposed cuts in departmental branches with non-support responsibilities. With respect to the two disability support officers to be axed, by the way, these are the only two disability support officers in a department of 5,608 people, which is a ratio of approximately one admin officer to 2.3 teachers.
The chief executive of DET has advised that they are working with DHCS on continued support for students with disabilities. But as of yesterday’s question time
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video