Page 5028 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
If this was not bad enough, in answer to a question on notice I asked about student injuries occurring in our schools, the minister in her answer admitted that she and the directorate have no data, no information and know nothing about what is happening. She does not know, and her directorate does not know, who was injured, how they were injured, whether they were receiving additional support in learning support units or were in mainstream classes. At best, it is downright incompetence; at worst it is a wilful closing of the eyes and turning of the back, throwing this into the too-hard basket. Either way, it is absolutely unacceptable.
This motion today shows yet again how this minister is so focused on her future of education ideology and accompanying buzzwords and feel-good slogans that she has completely dropped the ball and is not across what should be happening in schools according to existing education policies and what the community needs.
The future of education strategy has been the minister’s focus for two years and it is supposed to be the blueprint for education delivery in the ACT for the next 10 years. But with not a single mention of languages—their importance, their contribution and their value—it can hardly be considered to be a complete document or a comprehensive blueprint.
In turning to the amendment, the minister claims that the future of education strategy “highlights the importance of students learning to ‘participate effectively and respectfully in a diverse society’ and schools operating with inclusion so that ‘diversity in all its forms’ is embraced”. If she is pointing to this as the future of education strategy acknowledging the importance of language education, this is laughable, and she is clutching at straws.
To bring an amendment to my motion that suggests that these words are specifically about the importance of language education in Canberra schools is at best delusional and at worst downright untrue and retrofitting the buzzword of “diversity” to the context of something as important as language education in our schools.
Just as she demonstrated clearly in question time today that she does not understand the difference between a community school model and the school community as a broad concept, she clearly does not understand the difference between language education and diversity and inclusion in our schools.
What I do, however, have to give the minister credit for here is that she did circulate the amendment, and not while I was on my feet, which is the usual custom when it comes to this government. And on this occasion she has actually, almost, nearly, and clearly reluctantly, admitted that more can be done, something she clearly does not bend over backwards to do. There is even a time frame in which to report back with an action plan. Despite stating that there is nothing to see here, her amendment at least acknowledges that more can be done.
I suspect that her “calls upon” does contain an actual action plan and a time to report—because the Greens probably demanded it; and it seems, perhaps, from Mr Rattenbury’s comments, that that actually was the case. But what is appalling is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video