Page 4002 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in more enlightened times when the value of small schools is recognised for students at risk and when really tackling climate change comes into its own. Those schools might be a bit different when they reopen; they might cater for the whole of the community, as the Rivett group has chosen. Many of the groups in the consultations on closures said they want those sites retained as community assets, because they believe they were. They have gone for decades of those schools’ lives believing the schools belonged to them and were there to serve their kids and to build their communities. There is no doubt that local schools build communities.
Do you know, Mr Speaker, that 30 per cent of the ACT population changes every year? You come into this town—and I have done it; many people here probably have—from somewhere else, not knowing a soul, and how do you make contact? You do it through your local school. You get to know the kids, you might volunteer, you might go to P&C meetings. If you cannot do that you really do not lock into a community. That is why community schools are important. We know that most parents drop out of activism in a school once their kids go to high school. Why is that? It is because they are big; it is because it is harder. Fortunately, some parents do still engage, but an awful lot of parents do not find high schools as welcoming—partly because of the curriculum but also because there is not just one teacher to deal with your child, and the pastoral care is often not as well set up. Let us face it: the government has just admitted it in its appropriation bill.
One of the other reasons that the government used for closing schools was the condition reports. I have heard a lot of comments on those condition reports. I think they were definitely at the more harsh end of the scale. In some cases they may even have been incorrect. But there was no way for people to say that, to have input into those processes, and I would say that those condition reports actually overstate the cost of repairing the schools. And they assume that people want them repaired to state of the art. But people just want their schools; they are prepared to put up with some worn-out carpet sometimes; sometimes it is extreme and it needs replacing and that should be done, but if it is a question of the school or the carpet they will choose the school.
I remind people that Mount Neighbour primary school has the third-best condition rating and yet has the third-lowest total figure for critical, essential or important costs required to bring the site up to standard. But we were told last year that it was in a really bad state and that that was why it was being closed. The people of Rivett got together a petition because they have already been told their school will be sold. But apparently the condition report just indicates that there is a safety issue with the ceiling and roof on an external walkway. Rivett does have a major roof replacement expense listed, but for some reason this was not noted as a building safety issue and was tacked onto the end of the report. So people are sceptical even about these, which should be crucial and should be the ultimate evidence as to why a school is going to be too expensive to repair and therefore should close.
People lost faith in this process last year. I saw that when I went to the consultations on the future of the school closures. I believe the consultants acted in good faith and I am sure their report will in many cases reflect the community’s wishes, with the hidden subtext being that they want the opportunity for those schools to reopen as educational institutions. So I believe that the government is still not facing up to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .