Page 3133 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 16 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The community also has rightly raised concerns about what staff in the school knew and what actions they took. This is a very fundamental and important question and one which the investigation did go to so as to be very clear about who the decision maker was. While the investigation has found the decision and planning were a responsibility of one individual, the investigation did, as has been made public, reveal that once other officers became aware of it they may not have taken the action that we would reasonably expect of them.
While they expressed to the principal their deep reservations over the structure and the proposed use of the structure they were perhaps too accepting of an explanation of an experienced principal—someone they know and have worked with—and they did not elevate their concerns beyond the principal. As the director-general has said:
I am examining the conduct and decisions of every officer who was part of the Directorate’s response.
The director-general will be dealing with those officers. The director-general has advised me that they will be dealt with under the relevant ACT public service enterprise agreements.
Obviously the existence of this structure and the circumstances of its construction have raised questions about resourcing of our schools and how students with challenging behaviours can be managed. Education systems around the country are grappling with this. This is why I commissioned Professor Tony Shaddock to lead an expert panel to provide advice on the best practice and how the education sectors can do better. This report is due to me in October, and I propose to engage with the Assembly on its recommendations through the Standing Committee on Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Did resourcing play a part in this matter, one would ask? Irrespective of any supports available through ETD the principal authorised expenditure of over $5,000. That is $5,000 which could have been spent on training, expert psychological support, better infrastructure or any number of things. But the principal herself chose not to do that. The investigation found that the former principal did not engage as expected with the supports offered to her by central office.
This brings me to the role central office has played in this matter. The investigation has revealed that a number of staff in central office became aware of the structure before the executive of the directorate or me. Again, as the director-general has said, the response from officers when they became aware of the structure was not good enough. Officers did not question the decision of the principal as they should have.
This investigation has also found gaps in process. It has exposed a number of gaps in reporting, assurance and accountability measures of the directorate. These are gaps the director-general has moved quickly to fix. The director-general has announced the creation of a director for students and families. The director for students and families will be an internal advocate for our students and will drive reform internally to our systems towards the best practice and responsiveness to the needs of our students. They will also be a key contact for families who have questions and concerns about schools and schooling.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video