Page 3355 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
about buildings. If it was, in a lot of those cases they would be flocking back to the government sector and we would see the drift going the other way. I have not seen today’s statistics, but I do not think that is happening and I do not think that is likely to happen in the short term.
We are committing to improving our public education system. We believe that our policy of lowering class sizes is inherently good. In answer to questions today, we heard from the minister how we have the best teachers in the country. I agree; I think we have got fantastic teachers. But the minister is saying that the only way to improve educational outcomes is to give these excellent teachers more training. I suggest that if we do have excellent teachers, which I believe we do, a better way to go is to say: “Look, many of you have very high skills, very high-quality training. You are quality teachers; we acknowledge that you are quality teachers. What we are going to do is, instead of you having 27 or 28 kids in your class, we will give you 21.” A quality teacher teaching 21 students will get better outcomes for their kids than a quality teacher teaching 28. There is no debate about that. The reality is that it is not one or the other. We do have quality teachers. We want to invest in a quality workforce.
The minister has floated a vague plan for $100,000 salaries for teachers. We have not heard anything about how he plans to pay for that. We have not heard the costings on that. We think that it was something that he was putting out there as a sort of ideal which he never intends to follow through on, but maybe the minister can share with us when he has the opportunity to speak. But this is not an either/or. We absolutely need to keep supporting our teachers in their additional training and professional learning. That is why we have got policies in relation to that.
In response to our education announcement, the government’s argument appears to be this, if I can sum it up: “21 or low class sizes in kinder, in year 1, in grade 2 and grade 3. Very good; great educational outcome. But as soon as you extend that to grade 4 you are wasting your money. Good in year 3; bad in year 4—waste of money; do other things.” That is a ludicrous argument. It does not stand up to any scrutiny that somehow we are not going to get better outcomes if we extend that process through primary school. Each of those children can still continue to have that more personalised learning, but that child who is struggling can be helped more than they otherwise would. They can be identified and assisted. That child who needs greater challenge can be assisted in their learning and challenged in where they are at.
No amount of spin from this government can change the fact that is at the centre of their argument. Their argument against our policy is that it is a good thing—in fact, it is something they are committed to—from kinder to grade 3, but after that there is no benefit and we should not bother. That is a ridiculous argument. It is an absolutely ludicrous argument. The people of the ACT are much brighter than that. They understand and the parents and teachers inherently understand that. That is why we are getting so much feedback, particularly from teachers—we got it both before we announced this policy and after we announced it—saying what a wonderful thing it is.
Is it the whole answer? No, of course it is not. We have heard from the AEU and others, as we often do from lobby groups and others. They say: “Thank you very much, but what about this? What about high school teacher numbers, student numbers and class sizes?”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .