Page 2973 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
reduce the class sizes of all years through to year 6. The Canberra Liberals, as a consequence of that, will fund a maximum of 21 students per class from years 4 to 6, a position that is not supported by the Stanhope government. And one wonders why. The gains, if we can achieve that, are long lasting and sustained. Clearly, the ACT government are simply narrowcast here. They have been blindsided. They are stuck with this ceiling to year 3. They will not think beyond that.
We know that when children get to the ages of 10, 11 and 12, they are getting to that phase of their growth and personal development where the challenges they face are much stronger. At that point in their lives, they are a little more troubled. Academically, they are also beginning to think differently, and this is a crucial time when they need a lot more attention than they are getting with class sizes which do not allow them to get that better focus.
That is why we believe it is very important to focus on this particular phase in education. It does not stop at year 3. You have to take it at least through to year 6—that very interesting transitional time between being a young kid and moving into early adolescence. A lot of focus is needed by teachers then. That is why it is crucial to bring these class sizes down.
I spoke yesterday in this place about the STAR project, which we believe was very influential in persuading many scholars and policy makers that small class sizes do make a difference. Its findings have been used to justify reductions in larger class sizes of 30 or more, small average reductions in class size and reductions in class size in other years of schooling. The critics of the STAR report considered that the faith placed in smaller classes was misplaced. A key critic is Professor Eric Hanushek. The principal argument posed by the professor is that across-the-board large reductions in class size are a highly expensive means of achieving small gains in outcomes and that other policies should be considered. That is what he said, and it is addressed here. It would seem, of course, that Minister Barr has read the professor’s work exclusively from front to back, and that is where he seems to be hanging his shingle. We have talked about a number of studies in this place that really debunk those theories.
This debate is not about pitting investment in teacher training against smaller class sizes. Rather, it is about achieving both outcomes at the same time. There is no reason why we cannot have smaller class sizes and better teacher outcomes, and that is exactly what the opposition has proposed. The government, quite erroneously, is saying that you cannot do both—that you cannot invest in teacher quality and reduce class sizes at the same time. Well, we have proven that you can. The opposition’s well-funded and well-tested proposal proves that these can be undertaken concurrently.
This very point was made by Harvey Goldstein and Peter Blatchford from the Institute of Education at the University of London. In their analysis of the STAR project data, they provide another piece of empirical evidence research. So it is not just being said by the STAR report or the Australian Primary Principals Association; it is also being said by these learned men from the London university. We believe there is a strong case for reducing class sizes to year 6, and we on this side of the chamber will pursue that policy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .