Dr Bruce Flegg
Member for Moggill

Education

Wednesday, 24 March 2010 12:52

Matters of Public Interest 23 Mar 2010 

Education 

morning, it seems that he spends an awful lot of time googling LNP websites looking for ideas. A very good idea for the minister might be for him to improve his googling technique, because I posted the LNP’s response to the Geoff Masters report on the LNP website—on the home page to make it easy for the minister to find—and it still does not appear that he was able to find it. 

I am pleased to make this response here today, because it is important that the LNP makes such a response. I note that in the Queensland Teachers Union’s response to the green paper it said that there is a long history of organisational reforms in education that have served little purpose other than to demonstrate that a particular government is ‘doing something’ about education. That is one of my concerns about the government’s green paper. We saw it with the prep year—an idea that we supported but it lost some of its benefit through excessive class sizes and the absence of full-time teacher aides. Itis all right to have the idea but the execution has to be delivered properly. 

The LNP is deeply committed to Queensland providing the world’s best in the area of education.What could be more important? Furthermore, the LNP is willing to support positive initiatives from the government. Although the government is generally not willing to consider ideas put forward by the LNP,as we have seen in a number of areas, the offer stands to support the government, where possible, ongood ideas in education. The government’s green paper deals with the issue of reading. I think there issome $8 million for that, most of which looks to me like it is to be spent on advertising. It is referred to bythe Queensland Teachers Union as reform on the cheap. I think the last time we heard somebody advocating reading to children it was from Mark Latham. So this issue is recycled Mark Latham.Obviously, the LNP supports the principle of reading, but if using volunteers in schools is not based on an initiative from that school and from individual teachers, I can tell members now that it will not besuccessful. 

The most contentious area of the paper is the move of year 7—40,000 state school students areto be moved into high schools in response to the national curriculum. In this discussion paper—socalled—it is actually a fait accompli. It is a very high-risk strategy. The government talks about buildingand capital expenditure of $300 million. That appears to me, and others, to be inadequate. The physical environment of schools is very important and those 40,000 state school students are going to need classrooms, music rooms, science labs and the like. 

But even more important is the quality of the education—the specialist high school teachers todeliver it and the intensive support. There is no mention even of recurrent expenditure or of the numbers of extra high school teachers who will be needed. In Queensland, children in that year are much younger than their counterparts. I notice that the government is trying a bit of sleight of hand on this issue. They will still be younger on entering high school in Queensland than children in the other states. Although the Gold Coast Bulletin misquoted me, saying that I was calling for a test, I support the principle of parents and teachers assessing children for their readiness to enter high school at this young age. I note that the Queensland Teachers Union made a similar call. No mention is made in this paper about middle schooling.

No mention is made in this paper about the assistance that will be available to the private sector, which will suffer a decline in enrolment in their primary schools and increases in enrolment in their secondary schools. This is a very complex and costly area. I will post our response shortly on my website and the LNP’s website. I hope the minister can find it.