Page 658 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
everyone—should have equitable access to an education that meets their needs and aspirations and gives them the skills and capacity to participate fully in our modern society.
We want both government and non-government education funding to be based on a formula that is transparent and accountable and seeks to recognise the fact that there is inequality of opportunity in our society. There is a need for this funding to be more clearly relatable to student outcomes and to follow the needs of students as they progress through their schooling.
The issue of outcomes and results was something I was thinking about in the context of yesterday’s discussion where I made reference to results. The broader notion of outcomes is the right one here when it comes to discussing children’s education, because not everybody, as we all well know, is going to be academically strong, but they have plenty of the strengths that can be developed through the educational system. We need to look at that broader notion—not just the NAPLAN test results but, rather, the full set of educational outcomes that young people get.
The ACT Greens sought during the 2012 election to provide greater certainty to the non-government sector in relation to recurrent funding of students with disabilities in particular but also for the longer term in regards to six-year agreements with the commonwealth. That is why the Greens took to the election more recurrent funding for students with a disability in non-government schools until a new national funding model was implemented. We are very aware of the unique socio-economic makeup of the ACT and the role we also play in responding to cross-border and regional needs. That is why we remain committed to achieving the best outcome for all students. This includes supporting choice for parents and carers.
Contrary to some of the comments Mr Doszpot alluded to yesterday in the debate, I believe the Greens have quite a positive relationship with the non-government education sector. This relationship builds on a mutual professional respect that allows for differing views. We have, at times, had some robust debates with the non-government sector, but these debates have left all participants with a better understanding of each other’s position and have allowed for the development of common ground on complex issues. That is not to say we do not have differing views on funding issues or other matters, but we can all conduct ourselves with professionalism. My office certainly enjoys a strong and open relationship with all major sector stakeholders. They know they can contact me and my team whenever there is a need.
All schools need certainty to support planning for the future and responding to the individual needs of their students. That is why I believe the Gonski reforms are so important and why I spoke so passionately yesterday in the debate about why we should be proceeding with that funding agreement and not backtracking as appears will be case.
Funding certainty is sought for government schools but it is there for the non-government sector also. Again, the six-year funding agreement should be delivered for all students in my view. People seem to forget that Gonski had many other
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video