Page 2579 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 23 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
People might say, “So what? Show me your TIMSS and I will show you my preferred study.” Educationalists in this country are saying that the TIMSS review is a hard-core academic study of performance versus other studies that this government and other Australian governments have used. Educationalists are saying that the studies this government and other state governments prefer to use are much more esoteric in nature. TIMSS is a good, hard-core analysis of academic performance. TIMSS shows us that ACT schools, like most schools across this country, are falling well behind the OECD average. The December 2004 study and studies that have been conducted since then show not only that we still maintain that negative marginal gap; they also show that United States schools, English schools and other schools have increased their performances, whereas we have not.
These issues must be analysed, which is why there must be an inquiry into academic standards. We must also examine the 2004 ACER test to establish where our schools stand. It is not good enough to compare our schools against other Australian schools. The government is right to ensure that we assess our schools against the OECD average. This country needs to perform; it needs to develop its skills and capabilities against the OECD average. After all, we operate in a global economy and that should be our benchmark. We must examine these issues more closely. I want to speak briefly about the contentious issue of values education. I can hear members on the other side sighing.
Mr Barr: It was more next to you actually, but anyway.
MR PRATT: I also noticed some members close to me sighing. I want to throw values education on the table. Values education, which is a debatable issue, is fundamental to the way ahead. It is fundamental to the reason for the drift from public schools to non-government schools. The Labor government and its apparatchiks in the education system have always paid lip service—and they continue to do so—to values education. I put it to members that a good inquiry launched by Mr Stefaniak will examine this contentious and debatable issue of values education. Such an inquiry might tell us a lot about the drift from the public school sector to the non-government school sector.
Finally, I wish to touch on the learning and teaching environment, the environment in which our schools operate, safety aspects in our schools, bullying, violence and the retention of teachers. Why are we losing so many good young teachers after five or six years? Why are they drifting away from the public school sector? Is the department supporting our young teachers? I do not believe our schools have a sufficient number of mentors and lead teachers to look after and nurture younger teachers and help to retain them in the system.
Mr Stefaniak’s terms of reference relating to the retention of teachers is very important. I will not labour this issue but I have spoken to Mr Barr, written to him and asked him questions in estimates committee hearings about violence at a particular school. I have not received answers to my questions. Those issues must be assessed as part of an inquiry into our learning environment.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. Earlier Mrs Dunne raised a point of order under standing order 47. I may have erred because what she has to say might well be pertinent to the debate at hand. I ask her to proceed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .