 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Education, questions in relation to post- compulsory schooling in South Australia.
Leave granted.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The 1988 Gilding Inquiry into immediate post-compulsory schooling in South Australia found that the final years of secondary schooling must equally prepare students who do not wish to go to university as well as those who do. In doing so, it aimed to make post-compulsory schooling work for a group of students for whom it traditionally had not worked. It was from the beginnings of this inquiry that the existing South Australian Certificate of Education was created.
The Gilding Inquiry report called for a major review of progress after two years, but to my knowledge the first major review of post-compulsory schooling was released only on 12 October this year. The report, titled `Early School Leaving in South Australian Secondary Schools', was released by DETE, SSABSA and the Flinders Institute for the Study of Teaching, and it lifted a veil over post- compulsory schooling in South Australia to reveal that our public education system in those latter years, in particular, was failing quite a number of young South Australians. Interestingly, no media release was issued for the study's launch, nor did the Minister for Education or the CEO of DETE attend the launch. I find this odd since the public is concerned about school retention rates and post-compulsory schooling in this state, and the state government itself, I understand, invested at least $300 000 in this study.
The question that has been put to me is, `Why was the release of this study so low-key?', also noting that it fell within days of the government's announcement that it was to lift the compulsory school leaving age from 15 to 16 years-and I note that the Labor Party, not to be outdone, has now announced that it will introduce a private member's bill to increase-
The Hon. Carolyn Pickles interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Just a second: let me finish. I am not asking you the question, anyway. The Labor Party has announced that it will introduce legislation to lift the compulsory leaving age from 15 to 16 years. At the time, some people observed that, given the stories of the participants involved in the `Early School Leaving in South Australian Secondary Schools' study, it really was disturbing. The findings were so critical of the post- compulsory schooling situation in South Australia that perhaps it is not surprising that the media were not told about the release of that study.
The minister responded to my comments with claims that raising the leaving age would better equip our young people for the future and that Partnerships 21 will give local schools the ability to meet students' needs. Others have observed to me that the real problem with P21 for these kids is that schools will be competing for students to secure additional funding and will not seek to attract and keep students who are resource intensive and not likely to succeed.
It is also worth noting that a week ago the Australian Centre for Education Research issued a press release announcing the release of its report `Non-completion of school in Australia: The changing patterns of participation and outcomes'. The Deputy Head of Policy Research at ACER, Dr Phillip McKenzie, went into quite an extensive analysis of why young people are leaving school early. Perhaps not worrying too much about the numbers, which all justify the claim he makes, he states:
It is also important to ensure that young people are not just participating in education and training to occupy their time but are engaged in programs that are appealing, relevant to their futures, and which promote skills and knowledge which will ensure their long-term employability and active participation in society.
Given these comments and the contents of the Early School Leaving in South Australian Secondary Schools report, which shows that those latter years are failing many students at this stage, will the minister explain why that report was not given more public airing than it was, particularly in the light of the government's intention to raise the school leaving age, which means that students who are finding that school is not working for them will be forced to stay at school without any change in the school system itself?
Can the minister inform this place what changes will be made to ensure that these students who are being forced to stay at school longer will get an education that is relevant and useful to them, rather than simply staying at school, which will be a waste of their time and probably will be destructive for other students who have to share classes with them?
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): I will refer the honourable member's questions to the minister and bring back a reply.
See Government Response (13 March 2001)
