Page 2872 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 14 August 2018

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


that it was among a range of initiatives being considered in the development of an ACT early childhood strategy. Only days later, a shiny announcement was provided to the Canberra Times.

Interestingly, in response to a recommendation that the government create an early childhood educator professional development fund to support the ongoing need for training of specialist educators in the area, the government’s response was yet another non-committal “noted”. While they say they support professional development in the early childhood sector, the government response went on to argue that it is up to employers to meet the cost of training. This is really demonstrating commitment and recognition of the importance of early childhood education—not!

If it is anything like the rollout of the 20 school psychologists, the three-year-olds who will benefit from this initiative have not even been born yet. The minister does not know how many gifted and talented classes are currently in operation in our primary schools but insists that a local government school education is absolutely the best fit for any child.

Recent research published in ACER’s Teacher bulletin shows that, in its most recent report examining teacher policies and practices, the OECD has found that Australia is the only OECD country that does not make an attempt to compensate for disadvantage in schools with smaller classes and/or lower student to teacher ratios. Further, disadvantaged schools in Australia tend to have larger classes than advantaged schools.

It also found that principals of disadvantaged schools were more likely than their colleagues in advantaged schools to be staffing science classes with teachers that did not have the appropriate qualifications. And Australia was the only OECD country to report that disadvantaged schools had both fewer teachers per student and a smaller proportion of fully certified teachers with a major in science than advantaged schools. Good schools and good educational outcomes start with good teachers, and the OECD report highlights that.

Are our Canberra teachers the best that they can be? Are we providing sufficient development opportunities for them? Are disadvantaged schools struggling with larger classes? It is in these areas that addressing inequality will have meaningful and measurable outcomes, not giving every child the same-coloured pencil.

Different students and different schools require different responses. We need to ensure our government school system has the flexibility and the capacity to accommodate the breadth of different circumstances. For example, if a parent believes their late primary schoolchild has particular talents, can they only be directed to their local high school? And what if they are out of zone for a school that best fits their child’s needs and that school is already at capacity?

We have already seen how demountables are increasingly becoming used to overcome overcrowding. Another descriptor could be short-term vision and lack of planning. Where once such constructions were seen as temporary stopgap measures, we now learn that many have been in place for years, if not decades. The committee


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video