Page 3132 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 16 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
advise them that an HR investigation would be commenced and a broader inquiry would be launched into responding to the needs of students with complex and challenging behaviours.
The decision by a school principal with extensive experience and in a position of trust and care of our young students, I agree, is one which to this day I simply do not understand or accept as acceptable. Indeed, I recognise that people were saying, “How would this come to be?” But it is what it is. The principal has accepted the findings. The findings say the principal in and of herself made those decisions. She has accepted that. Glenn Fowler from the AEU, which you like to bring in, has accepted those findings. If the principal or Glenn Fowler did not accept the findings, they would be out in the public commenting but they are not. They have accepted those findings.
From 10 March to 27 March we had in our schools a structure that had no place in our schools. It does not matter whether it was in our schools for 14 school days or 14 seconds; its very existence was an affront to the dignity of the students that we care for. This morning and again at question time the question was raised about a quote that was dated February. It is a simple response: the quote was sought in February; the construction happened on 10 March. There is no conspiracy theory; it is simply that fact. It was a deeply flawed decision and one that simply cannot be justified.
The structure was intended to be used as a time-out space as part of managing challenging behaviours. While time-out space is understood and accepted as part of a management plan, this structure was simply unacceptable and had no place in our schools. While the structure was in place, the investigation indicates the student was only placed in it by staff on one occasion for managing behaviour. However, as an open space within the classroom, there were occasions when students would go in and out of that space for a range of reasons.
I also understand that protocols for the use of the structure were drafted. The investigation indicates that the protocols were drafted by the principal with no input from the directorate. It is challenging to think a principal of standing would do this. The protocols were provided to the family but they were not involved in their drafting. Given the nature of the structure, it is obvious that the protocols in and of themselves are also inappropriate. We now know that this was the decision of one individual—the principal. We know this through the independent investigation, and it has been accepted by the principal.
I know this stretches credibility. However, such was the massive error of judgement involved that we now have an individual who has admitted that they did not consult with their staff, they did not engage the expertise of central office of ETD, and the family also maintains that they were unaware of the true nature of the structure. It is an error for which the former principal has paid a significant price. The principal has been removed from the school and, as the director-general has said, will not be returning to a school. Further, as required by law, the findings of the investigation have been referred to the Teacher Quality Institute to determine if there can be any breaches of professional standards and for the TQI to take any necessary action.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video