Page 3839 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One of the issues that is of particular concern to me is the amount of money spent on curriculum support. This has to again be put in the context of the fact that during the 2006-07 budget considerable numbers of staff were taken out of the curriculum support unit. We have now through this budget the injection of three new PE teachers, which is suddenly going to turn around the health and fitness of a whole range of pupils; it is quite magical. On top of that, a certain amount of money—it is unclear exactly how much money—will be allocated to language teaching. We think that money in this financial year will be in the order of $100,000.
Some of the initiatives which were spoken about by the minister and his officials were quite good. It is about better coordination, better online material and the quality of online material. The quality of online material for language teaching in this day and age is extraordinarily good and there is potential to really improve children’s outcomes. It is laudable that the government should be trying to introduce language teaching other than English into every non-government school by 2010 because at the moment only about a bit over half the schools do it.
But what are we going to get for that? Those in years 3, 4, 5 and 6 are going to get 60 minutes a week, nothing for those in kinder, first and second grade, and 150 minutes a week for students in years 7 and 8. So there is no real effort at producing a quality outcome. It is going to be another thing of saying, “We have X number of students learning a language.” But there will be no qualitative measure to find out at the end of primary school how proficient they are at that language, whether they have progressed the way they should have and how we are actually teaching languages.
In Australia generally, in the ACT, we are appalling at teaching languages. We waste the resources. What we have seen here today is the potential to waste yet more resources. There is nothing in what was said by the officials or by the minister that shows that they are taking language teaching seriously. It is not some vague, elitist thing. Language teaching is extraordinarily important. It is good that children undertake language learning, and if you are going to have full effect you start them as young as possible.
If we are going to have the great Barr dream of integrated preschools and primary schools, we should be starting them in preschool and it should be continuing, with a consistent language, all the way through into at least year 8, and preferably higher, so that the children have something to show for it. What we see now is that a child gets to the end of year 6 and has learnt very little language. They go to another school and say: “Why should I continue to do this? I have nothing to show for it.” The minister must do better in future.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12.12): I thank the committee for the report. It is all the more valuable for what it does not say than for what it does say. I thought there would have been more emphasis on some of the significant funding initiatives in there in terms of their dollar value, but the comments do show the predilection of members on the committee. I am particularly grateful for the last recommendation of the committee—that the bill be passed—because I think that is the sign of maturity of this place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .