 |
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 Attorney- General-I presume he is standing in the place of the Treasurer and representing the Minister for Education-a question about Port Adelaide Primary School.
Leave granted.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Like so many other governing councils, the governing council of Port Adelaide Primary School was told that, if it joined Partnerships 21, there would be more flexibility and it would have more say about how school funds were allocated. Having lost the school canteen, with premises and facilities declining from a lack of funding and with a closure review set for next year, P21 was attractive to some members of the school community. They thought that P21 might give them a chance to save their school.
Members of the school community started a campaign called `Target 30' because they were told that this was the extra number of students necessary to keep open the school. They have already secured, I am told, 15 new students. Recently, the school advertised in the local paper to attract more students for next year. However, the challenge of attracting new families to the school has been made all the more difficult by the pending loss of the school counsellor and declining school facilities. Not surprisingly, members of the governing council have sought to use their newly promised flexibility under Partnerships 21 to stop the slow decline of the school to oblivion.
However, I am informed that the governing body is not being supported in its request to use available funds to address these needs. I am also informed that, despite the school's advertising behaviour support programs as a strength of the school, members of the governing council have been told that the loss of the school counsellor is a result of departmental policy and nothing can be done at the local school level. It is worth noting that just in recent days the Primary School Principals Association has called for the allocation of a school counsellor to all primary schools: this is a school which already had a school counsellor but which is about to lose it. They have been told that, in fact, until after the review as to whether or not the school will remain open, they will not be given a school counsellor which, I am told by parents, undermines their efforts to maintain the school.
The question of sufficient resources to actually use the flexibility is an important question, and there are not enough resources allocated to schools for them to really be able to budget for school counsellors within the P21 allocation. My questions are:
1. Does the minister agree that a school counsellor is important in the provision of a successful behavioural support program?
2. Does the minister also agree that, in an area with socioeconomic challenges to success at school, such as Port Adelaide, the school counsellor should be of a high priority?
3. Will the minister explain the process by which the department decides which schools receive counsellors and which do not?
4. Does the minister agree that withholding funding, which could keep a counsellor in a school such as Port Adelaide Primary School until the school is no longer viable, is a case of too little support too late?
5. Will the Minister explain whether this situation is typical of what he means by greater flexibility and participation for school communities under Partnerships 21?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): On behalf of my colleague the Treasurer, I will refer those questions to my colleague in another place and bring back a reply.
See Government Response (13 March 2001)
