Whose idea is this, anyway? 3 September, 2006
Posted by Emma Davidson in News.trackback
On 16 August, Jon Stanhope is quoted in Hansard as saying that the consultation model being used in the Towards 2020 process was negotiated with the P&C Council’s former president, Dr Ian Morgan.
However, we have been told that this is not true. According to Trevor Cobbold of Save Our Schools, P&C Council at that time proposed that the consultation period should be 18 months, with a detailed consultation process outlined in the Act and/or in statutory guidelines.
So whose idea was the six month consultation period, ending on the last day of the school year for 2006, to decide whether Melrose Primary and Chifley pre-school should close at the end of 2006?
It’s about time the Chief Minister came clean and told us the full truth, and nothing but the truth, about where the “Towards 2020″ plan came from.
Extract from ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard
16 August 2006 Legislative Assembly for the ACT
MR STANHOPE: The process the government is following in relation to consultation is the statutory process. It is a process that the then minister, Ms Gallagher, negotiated for almost a year with the then president of the P&C, Dr Morgan. It is essentially the P&C’s model. The consultation model included within the legislation took a year to negotiate because of the concern of the P&C council in relation to a model which was acceptable to the P&Cs of the school community.
It is Dr Morgan’s model. It was negotiated over a year, it was incorporated into the legislation and it is now being faithfully complied with by this government. It is passing strange that a model which was fully supported, fully negotiated and introduced into the legislation only after the most detailed consultation, only with the full agreement of
Dr Morgan and the P&C council is, now that it is being utilised, all of a sudden fatally flawed. It is the P&C’s model. We are fully abiding by it in good faith and will continue to do so. The motion will not be accepted.
I’ve heard the Minister for Education and others putting forward the idea that small schools are not viable and meet no need that cannot be met at a larger school. I have taught in primary schools for the past 17 years and know that the one size fits all approach does not meet the needs of all students. Small schools have a lower incidence of bullying, make it easier to meet the specific social needs of students, often demonstrate a higher level of academic achievment and have a wonderful community feel that is in danger of becoming lost in the current climate of economic rationalism. We diminish our system of education when we break everything down into an economic argument. What should be central is what are the needs of the students and community not how much the real estate is worth.
I hate to be cynical but I am yet to be convinced by the political double speak and the rubbery figures put forward by the government. Our next step should not be to close these schools down as quickly as possible but to genuinely consult with communities and to make sure that before we do anything else we enhance and not degrade our system of education.
We have a young family and we are hoping to send them to our local school. We dont’ want a large impersonal school with kids economically crammed to the rafters but a smaller local school that meets the individual needs of students
Duncan Lawler (Chifley Resident)