Page 2713 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 12 August 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
strong body of evidence about what is most effective in teaching children and what does not work so well. Educators must, like other professions, stay on top of what the research is showing, perhaps in spite of personal preferences or habit or previous training. Teacher quality is an important part of achieving this.
Teachers need to be nurtured and offered up to date training opportunities that reflect the very best of pedagogical practice. They need access to new and emerging technologies and the time to undertake professional development and engage with mentors. This approach to teacher quality also needs to recognise the many different functions of the modern teacher and the complex nature of modern classrooms.
Aside from the core curriculum, mainstream teachers are increasingly called on to provide lessons to students who may have learning disabilities or English as a second language. They are required not just to teach but to mark their students’ results, design classroom programs, engage with parents and carers—the list goes on. That is why the profession deserves our respect and we have so much pride for the great student outcomes we see reported on in the media.
Madam Speaker, we must not forget that not all students are having equal outcomes and that teachers are only part of the answer to closing the gap in academic achievement associated with students’ socioeconomic status and cultural background. It is also about the robust nature of the curriculum, the quality of our teacher training institutions, the flexibility of the school as a community and the passion of principals as school leaders.
I note the recent comments in the media regarding the NAPLAN results. Yes, the ACT should have some pride in our results, but I also note the national picture emerging that clearly shows the generic testing approach has yet to demonstrate a lift in our national levels. I also note with some concern the previously mentioned gap in academic achievement associated with students’ socioeconomic status that is clearly illustrated when the NAPLAN data is disaggregated. The ACT performs well, but so we should: we have some of the highest SES rankings in the country, and we would do well to ensure we evaluate our outcomes in light of this.
We cannot have a debate in this place on educational matters without mentioning the broader issue of school funding. Our schools and teacher training facilities need resources to keep ahead of the curve and adapt to new research and new technologies. We need universities funded to levels that will produce great teachers and we need realistic university fees so we can encourage people to the profession. Teacher quality is obviously a key component of educational quality, but so is education funding as well.
I am happy to support Dr Bourke’s motion today. Like Mr Doszpot, I welcome Dr Bourke bringing this matter up for discussion. It is certainly worth spending time on. The observations made in Dr Bourke’s motion are good ones, and I am certainly happy to participate in the debate and also flag some of these issues, particularly making sure we give more thorough consideration to how we deal with differences in socioeconomic status as we think about how we train our teachers and the educational outcomes we are seeking.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video