Traffic safety issues not considered

According to the Government’s report (“Review of School Crossings and Traffic Issues at Schools, Child Care and Older Persons’ Facilities”, July 2004) “The ACT has one of the lowest pedestrian accident rates in the world” and “the ACT has a rate that is less than half the Australian average for the number of pedestrians killed. The report states that “one of the key reasons for this achievement is it’s relatively well planned layout with a strong road hierarchy system”.

Closing neighbourhood schools forces school children to cross major roads, breaking down the road hierarchy that makes Canberra safe. No mention of traffic safety has been made in the Government’s plan. At the consultation meeting for the South East Belconnen region the Education Department CEO, Dr Michele Bruniges admitted that safety assessments had not been done. Clearly the safety of school children was not part of the process for deciding which schools would close. This is not good enough.

Update: Published in the Canberra Times, 18th August.

Government fails the test

The Stanhope Government have not only failed to learn from the school consolidation policy of the Alliance Government (“Schools approach was ill-considered”, Editorial, August 2), they have fallen well short. The earlier plan at least had extensive criteria which could be addressed. This Government has none outside of capacity figures, which they admit are wrong in many cases.

The fact that the “Government’s salesmanship of its education policy has so far been lackadaisical” is, in no small part, due to the lack of rigour in the proposal. It is tissue-thin. There are few reasons to defend it because there were few reasons behind it.

The Stanhope Government used aggressive PR tactics with distorted figures to try and capture the agenda. This has failed and demonstrated that they are not interested in the best possible outcome, merely their outcome. They have not dealt with the community in good faith.

At least the Alliance Government assigned Departmental officers to schools to assist them in making submissions. In contrast the Stanhope Government have forced parents of targeted schools to become educational experts and only belatedly released the figures which parents need to fight their case.

The campaign against the Towards 2020 proposal has been effective because it is badly flawed. They need to rip it up and start again.

Update: Published in the Canberra Times, 3rd July.

Demountables fear for pupils

That demountable buildings will be required to cater for students displaced by school closures is a disgrace (“Demountables fear for pupils”, July 28, p4). It shows the poor level of planning in the Government’s proposals.

From the Government’s projections, by 2010 one third of primary schools will be above 90% capacity with little or no spare room. These are 2010 figures. By the Governments own reckoning even more students need to be accomodated in 2007, 2008 and 2009. By design, then, there will be overcrowding in one third of Canberra’s primary schools.

The Government’s own population projections assume a steadily decreasing fertility rate and yet we know that fertility has increased for the last four years in the ACT. Under the Towards 2020 proposal, displaced students have been “assigned” to other schools to conveniently round out capacity figures with no thought to where parents will actually want to send their children.

We have a recipe for overcrowding in our public primary schools. High irony, except for the affected kids and their parents, who, it should be noted, are eligible to vote.

Private schools result of history and affluence

Jack Waterford talks of “parents voting with their feet” in the drift to the private system (Canberra Times, “Lessons in learning”, July 22, Panorama, p2). This is not a reflection on the public education system in the ACT, but of the availability of private education and Canberra’s relative affluence.

The ACT has the highest proportion of non-government schools in the country. The non-government primary sector in the ACT is dominated by Catholic schools which comprise 22% of all primary schools. This is also the highest percentage in the country and has been for more than 20 years. Other religious schools make up 9% of primary schools, and other independent primary schools are only 3%.

A national survey conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research in 2004, found that one third of Government school parents would send their children to a private school if they could afford it. The ACT is much wealthier than the rest of the country (average weekly earnings are 25% higher than the national figure).

The 2004 Sensis Consumer Report found that, for private school parents, the overwhelming reason for their choice of school was religion.

So, in the ACT almost a third of primary schools are religious, the population is wealthier and the most common reason for sending your child to a non-government school is religion. Closing Government schools will not change these underlying realities, so can we all stop pretending that school closures will boost the percentage of kids in Government schools?

Update: Published in the Canberra Times, 25th July.

Barr responds to criticism with more spin

In response to criticism of the Government’s selective use of statistics (Canberra Times, “Schools costings ‘misleading’”, p1, July 17) Minister Barr told the ABC that the Government’s numbers are correct, and the cost per student for some small schools is more than $19,000. Not some, TWO.

Minister Barr also issued a press release with yet more misleading statements. He quoted the difference between the average cost of schools with less than 200 students and those with enrolments of 400 to 600, and stated the smaller schools were 40% more expensive. And yet one fifth of the primary schools slated for closure have enrolments greater than 200, and in the very same press release was a quote which stated an ideal size for primary schools of 300-400.

So why didn’t Minister Barr compare schools of less than 300 with schools of 300-400 (or even 300-600)? Because the figures don’t look nearly as bad for small schools. The average per student cost for schools of less than 300 is $10989, and for those between 300-600 it is $8783. So the smaller schools are, on average, 20% more expensive. Half the figure Minister Barr quotes. Now can we start having a rational debate based on real figures?

Updat: Published in the Canberra Times, 19th July.

Schools costings ‘misleading’

The Canberra Times article (“Schools costings ‘misleading’”, p1, July 17) spells out what has been clear for some time. The Government has attempted to portray small schools in as bad a light as possible in order to push their agenda for closing schools.

The costings and savings documents recently released by the Government show they only plan to make savings on some salary related costs and Schools Based Management costs. If just the salary and management costs per student are used to rank the 69 Government primary schools (1=cheapest, 69=most expensive) some of the schools to be closed are in the top 50% of cheapest schools (Isabella Plains (25), Gilmore (33)). Others such as Higgins (39), Giralang (41), Mt Rogers (42) and Cook (44) are cheaper than sixteen other schools which are not being closed.

Can someone else explain this as the Government aren’t willing, or perhaps able, to.

Update: Published in the Canberra Times, July 18th.

Where are the whole of Government costings?

The ACT Government has finally released a breakdown of costs by school and an analysis of projected savings. It is a pity that this was not done before the public consultation meetings so that parents could be as well informed as the Government, and so have a more useful discussion.

At the consultation meeting for South East Belconnen Minister Barr assured us the Government would take a whole of Government approach to the cost of school closures. This has not be done, or if it has, it has not been released. When can we expect the costs associated with increasing childhood obesity, loss of community amenities, loss of social capital, increased road traffic and associated measures to protect commuting children to be deducted from their projected savings?

Minister Barr and Dr Bruniges (CEO of ACT Education Department) also acknowledged that risk assessments had not been done for the children forced to travel when their local school is closed. Dr Bruniges admitted that such assessments were required by law. When can we expect the results of these assessments to be published?

School plan based on no data

The importance of “decision grade” information to support decision-makers was stressed in Steve Neilsen’s column (Canberra Times, Public Sector Informant, July 4). One wonders if any information was used to decide school closures, let alone “decision grade”. The projected enrolments in Tuggeranong under the Towards 2020 plan have 500 more students than the projected enrolments under the current system. This is largely because the figures for Chilsholm and Wanniassa P-10 schools have been inflated by 320 and 200 pupils respectively. As well the projected enrolment for Wanniassa Hills Primary has been swapped with Wanniassa Primary. The projected enrolment for Theodore Primary has been mistakenly listed as the current enrolment.

Apart from the absolutely shambolic nature of the document, what are we to make of this? My interpretation is that these figures were not calculated as part of a comprehensive plan, but cobbled together after the decisions had already been made. On what basis, only the Minister can tell us. My bet is it will turn out to be Cabinet-in-confidence.

Update: Published in the Canberra Times, 11th July.

College system not broken

Colleges in the ACT are a success story (“Closures alone won’t work: expert”, June 5) as 63% of yr 11 and 12 students attend Government schools in the ACT. This is above the nation-wide average of 60% whereas public schooling rates in high schools and primary schools in the ACT are generally below the national average. The ACT College system is not broken, so please don’t try and fix it Mr Barr!

Barr dodges again

Minister Barr again dodged the question of incorrect capacity figures at the North Canberra consultative meeting (Canberra Times, July 4) by repeating his mantra that the Principal can request an audit of capacity at any time. Isn’t it a bit late for that?

Minister Barr has admitted that in some cases the capacity figures are wrong. He has admitted that the cost per student includes those with special needs. He has admitted that the cost per student is inflated by fixed building costs that will not be saved if the school is closed. The total number of students in the projected figures do not agree between the status quo and under their proposals. The data used for making the decisions in the Towards2020 document have been shown to be flawed, so the proposals cannot be regarded as sound. There has been no external review of their proposals to examine their educational or financial merit.

Now we find out from the Education Department that in some cases demountables may have to be used if some schools have a large influx of displaced students. Now there is some irony!

It is time for the Government to scrap Towards2020 and start again from scratch. Let us hope they are brave enough to take this step.

Update: Published in the Canberra Times, July 5th.

Public school system chaos

The rush to close schools will have massive repercussions over the entire education system, public and private as outlined in your article (Public school system chaos, July 3). This is an important message for parents whose children attend schools not listed for closure. They must ask hard questions of the Government about the dodgy capacity figures, and how their schools will be affected with large influxes of kids from other schools. Parents of out of area children currently enrolled in affected schools (Miles Franklin, Evatt, Kaleen, Maribyrnong, Aranda, Weetangera, Bonython, Calwell, Chisholm, Monash) need to know if their children will be given lower priority than displaced kids, or if the Government plans to house any overflow in demountables.

A lesson on schools?

Peter Brassington (A lesson on schools, June 30) sends his kids to a private school and doesn’t want to hear from those of us opposing the Governments current plan. He would do well to think on this quote from a non-government school website: “If a fee account remains unpaid after the third week of term the school reserves the right to ask a family to make arrangements for their children’s education elsewhere”. Elsewhere? Can he imagine circumstances whereby he could no longer afford to send his kids to a private school? If he can, can he then imagine how grateful he would be that some of us have stood up and defended the public system?

Barr has head in sand

At the school closure consultation meeting for Tuggeranong Minister Barr admitted that the capacity figures for Gilmore and Isabella Plains were inflated by the presence of temporary buildings. He refused to conduct an audit to correct the Department’s figures, stating that the Principal of the school can request an audit of school capacity. The Minister has stated he wants a rational debate. How can we have a rational debate without the correct figures? Should we put this down to incompetence, laziness or deceit?

Dodgy accounting on school closures

According to the Canberra Times report of the South Canberra consultative meeting we now know that the Government costings per student include building depreciation and departmental overheads that are roughly proportional to the student numbers at the school.

Minister Barr has publicly stated that no school buildings will be sold as a result of closures. So building depreciation costs will continue, and the maintenance costs will still be borne by the Government. The departmental overheads will remain the same. So just what will be saved as a result of these schools closing?

Facts in education debate

Anthony Mannering calls for factual debate (Canberra Times, “Learning lessons the hard way”, June 26). Excellent idea. Mannering says “it can cost twice as much per student to run a small school than a large one”. Yes it can, but only in a few of cases of very small (Tharwa) or special needs (Rivett) schools. Some of the schools to be closed cost only 10% more than average, and Many of them have some special needs students, so their per-student cost is higher, but the Government have not provided figures which account for this.

Mannering uses Gilmore Primary as an example of cost blowout by 2010. Currently the cost to educate a child at Gilmore Primary is $9261, which is about average in the ACT ($9248). He assumes this figure will rise by 2010 based solely on the “fact” that it will be at 28% capacity. This assumption relies on a capacity of 625 from the 2020 document – this figure is incorrect as it includes demountables.

Mannering doubts the educational benefits of small schools without backing this up. How about these assessments “Studies show all else being equal, students in small schools score higher on tests, pass more courses and go on to college more frequently than those in larger ones” and “Good schools are small. The evidence is clear, in fact it is overwhelming: small schools improve attendance, achievement, climate, safety, graduation and college attendance rates, staff satisfaction, and parent involvement”. These are both from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is actively supporting small schools in the USA. The value of small schools is backed up by the study of Cotton (1996) that is referenced on the 2020 website.

We need more facts in this debate, parents are clamouring for them. They were conspicuously absent from Anthony Mannering’s contribution.

Update: Published in the Canberra Times, 29th June.

Open, honest and informed debate on school closures

At the consultation meeting for South East Belconnen region the chief executive of the ACT Education Department, Dr Michele Bruniges, was asked to release the data the Department provided to the Costello Strategic Review. Dr Bruniges claimed this data was cabinet in confidence. Rubbish. Release the data so we can have an open, honest and informed debate.

Childhood obesity

The news of yet another campaign against rising levels of obesity (Canberra Times, “Weight of a nation still taking its toll”, June 22) is timely. This is a major health problem for the Australian community, particularly the alarming rise in childhood obesity. Not the time to be forcing even more kids to travel by car to school.

Update: Published in the Canberra Times, 26th June.

Debate on schools must be widened

Your call for the debate on schools to be widened (Canberra Times Editorial, June 19) is welcome. The current shape of the debate is a direct result of the methods the Government have chosen to pursue “reform”. Parents and concerned citizens have no other outlet but “special pleading”, this role has been forced on them. Parents who have chosen their local school have, by definition, had this choice taken from them. Who wouldn’t be angry under the same circumstances? This whole mess should be scrapped and a real consultation process enacted, as soon as possible.

Do not mistake the current muscular political posturing for good policy. The proposed changes are riddled with inconsistencies and have been very poorly explained. Large schools are the ideal now, it seems, with little justification. This is at odds with programs in the US where they are spending large amounts with the specific aim of smaller schools. Who is right? Who knows? But we are to supposed to rely on paternalistic assertions from the Minister? Forgive me, I’m feeling cynical. The ideal of neighbourhood schools, for some areas at least, has simply been discarded. It lies, forlorn, in a puddle of bathwater no doubt.

Update: Published in the Canberra Times, 24th June.

Value for how much?

Michael Fokerd (Canberra Times letters, June 14) has been taken in by the Government’s propaganda when he states that students at Giralang Primary cost $20,000 a year to eductate or double the cost of other ACT schools. This is certainly not the case for Giralang (Figures like these are true for only one or two extremely small schools and do not apply to most of the schools facing closure.)

The Department of Education are yet to reply to my request for the real figures, but my reading of the ACT Government’s own graph gives a per student cost at Giralang of between $10,000 and $13,000 per annum compared to an average across ACT schools of around $10,500.

The statements in Minister Barr’s full page ad in the Canberra Times (page 14, June 10) that costs are “as high as $18,000 per student” and that students in small schools “are costing the Canberra community as much as $10,000 extra for every student” were probably intended to evoke responses like Fokerd’s. But they are far from useful for the rational debate that Minister Barr is calling for.