Page 2871 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 14 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and, for too many in our system, currently it is not delivering education excellence either.
We need to understand why we are slipping. At a time when we should be having serious researched conversations about what ails ACT education, we instead focus on NAPLAN and a concerted effort by some ACT union members to rubbish it. We argue about the use of phonics rather than examining the evidence in other jurisdictions about their use and success factors and whether it is the right tool for ACT to explore. When all that fails, we resort to the tried and tested ALP-Greens approach of claiming it would all be so much better if we just had more federal funding.
In relation to NAPLAN, the Grattan Institute in May this year highlighted five things that we would not know if it were not for NAPLAN testing. They are: achievement gaps for Indigenous students; progress gaps for disadvantaged students; comparisons between the states and territories; changes over time in results at a particular school; and high achieving schools. All of these are valuable pieces of information, information that we would not have had without NAPLAN, but clearly they are not important to NAPLAN naysayers.
This is not to say that NAPLAN, or indeed any standardised testing, is the be-all and end-all of improving academic outcomes. We have had some concerns raised about how the NAPLAN data is being used, and those concerns are indeed issues that we need to look into.
Instead of rubbishing NAPLAN, warts and all, I implore the government to take leadership and have the hard conversations about NAPLAN: whether it is meeting the objective that it was intended for—namely, to equip teachers and parents with important information to support our students to improve their academic outcomes—and why and how the data is being misused. That is a more appropriate approach, and that is the conversation that this government should be having on NAPLAN.
The minister cannot tell me how many four-year-olds might require a preschool placement next year, but she is already letting balloons go up about opening up opportunities for three-year-olds. We asked about four-year-olds in the estimates process, and the minister first alluded to and then denied any consideration of the four-year-old preschool year becoming compulsory.
There is any amount of evidence to show and demonstrate the value of three-year-olds having a quality preschool education. But we have learned that only in the coming months will the minister be having yet another “conversation” with parents in the early childhood education sector, schools and the wider community about how, and therefore when, the government will be able to make this vital education opportunity universally available.
I note that the committee recommendation that a feasibility study be undertaken has only received a “noted” response. This is a significant policy direction, but was it discussed in estimates, where there could have been an informed debate about the hows, the whys and the when? (Second speaking period taken.) No. The response was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video