Page 5849 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

After subparagraph (1)(d), add:

“(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) undertake a review of ESL services including the Language Performance Rating cut off for full and partial support funding, with a view to raising the required level of English proficiency and the professional development and Directorate support services available to teachers;

(b) in conducting the review, consult with all relevant community stakeholders as well as ESL classroom teachers and their representatives; and

In the 2011 annual report of the Education and Training Directorate I read that the provision of assistance to students with English as a second language, or ESL, to support them to quickly and successfully transition into mainstream education has been identified by the Australian government as an important aspect of future economic growth and social cohesion for our country.

Of course, it is more than that. Proficiency in English is essential for people to be able to pursue opportunities. Communication skills give students access to more choices in learning areas, possibilities for contributing to the school culture, and to post-school options in the workforce and further education.

With parts of this motion highlighting some facts and figures, I question if this government is sincere in its commitment to these principles. This motion asks that the Assembly note that approximately 12 per cent of ACT public school students have been assessed as requiring ESL support and that this represents an increase of 35 per cent over the past 11 years. Currently the cut-off for full support offered to students who are learning English as a second language is based on the language performance rating of 1.75. We heard that this was out of a scale of 0 to 5.

So what does that mean? That means that a student has been assessed as having an English-speaking competency of well below average. It is also the case that the cut-off of partial funding support for students with ESL is based on a rating of two. This means an English-speaking competency of below average.

I am concerned to learn that we are restricting our support to these children and young people. We should not be accepting that well below or below average English-speaking competency is a cut-off point for some supports. How well will these students be able to engage with their peers, teachers and schools and make positive contributions to their education?

Supporting young people and young children to gain improved English speaking competency is of benefit to everyone. We see an immediate and tangible improvement in students’ academic achievement. Literacy and numeracy are greatly enhanced as English-speaking competency increases. I have heard that unfortunately some ESL students are unfairly deemed to have literacy and numeracy problems when, in fact, they do not.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video