Page 3243 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
technology, vocational training and the arts. The consultation process is outlined in the Education Act 2004—legislation passed by this Assembly—which states:
(5) Before closing or amalgamating a government school, the Minister must—
(a) have regard to the educational, financial and social impact on students at the school, the students’ families and the general school community …
That is exactly what the government are doing in our comprehensive and ongoing consultation process over the specifics of the Towards 2020 proposal. The process is laid out in the legislation and is being conducted in an open and transparent way, using the methods outlined in the ACT government’s community engagement manual. I was part of the drafting team for that manual when I was the CEO of Volunteering ACT, so I am very familiar with it. This is open and transparent consultation.
The school communities and the communities themselves do not need this derailment, this confusion, that Dr Foskey’s motion will cause. Now is not the time to add another step to the process, over four months since the announcement, when the community have been engaging in the process and working on their submissions. I am aware that a number of community members and groups have already completed their submissions and I know there are many others working on them. I have been assisting them with information for their submissions. I expect that by the closing date for submissions, 3 November, the government will have quite detailed feedback that covers all elements and issues that relate to the proposal and some innovative suggestions arising from the consultation. Where community members have granted their consent, the government will publish all of the submissions made through the process. That is another example of the open and transparent way we are consulting. Dr Foskey has different ideas on how consultation should be run.
This motion calls for a cost-benefit analysis based on the P&C’s supposed independent report. The report appears to be entirely focused on financial information, land values and largely unpublished research by groups such as save our schools. Rather than reading and researching widely on possible education costs and benefits, the approach is only financial. The footnote of that report that admits:
… that the benefits of education are not usually considered in analysis of school closures. This is not the case with the Towards 2020 (proposal). There are several papers on these topics available on the Towards 2020 website. We have not reviewed them to prepare this report.
The minister has referred to this. While the author admits to not reviewing the full range of educational research available to communities in developing the report, it is interesting to note that the author has reviewed two save our schools reports. Mr Barr said in this Assembly yesterday that on page 12 the report listed the benefits that could be seen from the proposal. Mr Barr quoted from the report as follows:
Teachers are likely to experience benefits in larger schools. There is potential for flexibility, greater interaction with other staff, improved teaching resources and facilities, and assistance with students with behavioural problems and administrative tasks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .