Page 288 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that a robust implementation plan is forming. We are more than half way through the term so she would do well to hurry up if she seriously wants families to see the benefits of those plans.
I doubt that, with a workforce of 5,000 teachers and teaching assistants and an enrolment of 48,000 students in 88 government schools, the engagement of four skilled teachers with expertise in pedagogy, learning difficulties and literacy and numeracy programming will make a huge difference, just as pocket coaching programs for school leaders is only a small, slow pathway to improvement.
I note the reference to improving the capability of teachers to use data to inform the learning needs of individual children. If that is at least an acknowledgement that concerns about NAPLAN are in part due to a lack of support for schools to understand and interpret the data that standardised tests like NAPLAN provide, then I look forward to seeing how that increased knowledge will assist schools in addressing the individual needs of students who are struggling.
We then come to the second of the motions to which this statement responds, that of the lack of language pathways. Again it is not a response; it is just another “Watch this space. We have a plan to scope a review of languages that will lead to an action plan.”
I remind the minister that the amended motion which passed the Assembly last year specifically called on her to develop an action plan to encourage, improve and support language education in Canberra schools as part of implementing the future of education strategy. That was to be brought back for report in February. The motion did not call for a plan to have an action plan. In the meantime students in the current system trying to work out language pathways from primary through to high school or even college will have given up.
I welcome the acknowledgement that recruitment and retention of specialist language teachers is a challenge. It was after all a point I highlighted in my motion. It is more than timely that the minister’s review will look at language pathways because, after all, she has a published a policy on her directorate’s website that claims one exists when we know that it does not. At best, it is a pathway that is currently full of cracks and dead ends.
Just to be clear, in the event that the minister tries at any stage to repeat her made up allegation that the Canberra Liberals were proposing to deliver 40 languages across all preschool to year 12 programs, I draw her attention to my motion which called for an audit of current languages. Her mention of empty promises in that context more accurately relates to what she claims is being done under the current ACT education system under her leadership. We know it is not, as do parents of students wanting to pursue a serious study of language who have spoken to us of this serious failure in program delivery.
I note the reference yet again to universal free early childhood education for three-year-olds. When this was first raised I sought a briefing. Frankly it was a complete waste of time. The minister had no detail to offer and admitted that it was an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video