Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011, which calls for changes to the implementation dates of the national curriculum for non-government schools. The concept of a national curriculum dates back to the 1980s; however, the states and the territories to this day have retained control over their own curricula. Historically, the attempts to introduce a national curriculum have failed and the idea has been widely criticised. The national curriculum was, however, endorsed in the leadup to the 2007 federal election and has been managed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.

At the time of the act's drafting in 2008 it was anticipated the rollout date of the national curriculum across all schools would be 31 January 2012. This bill proposes to alter the deadline for implementation to allow for a staged approach for the non-government schools sector implementation. The first part of this bill proposes to repeal the act's current implementation date for the Australian curriculum set out in the act as the original deadline. As an alternative to the original deadline the bill proposes variable implementation dates for various phases of the Australian curriculum. The Standing Council for School, Education and Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs will determine these new time lines. Due to the phased approach being undertaken to develop the national curriculum, the extent of consultations undertaken in the development and the need for flexibility have resulted in a need for a legislative amendment as prescribed in this bill. The amendment will provide a legal framework for the non-government sector to allow for the implementation and the appropriate administration of the implementation dates.

To advance on the national curriculum, all of the concerns need to be assessed to ensure that we are progressing positively with our education sector and not putting the sector in jeopardy for the sake of sticking to deadlines prescribed before all of the relevant stakeholders and representatives from government and non-government schools had a chance to be consulted as part of the development process. The national curriculum must exceed the expectations of the current state and territory curricula to be a step forward. It is an important change that needs to be carefully planned and executed to ensure we do not end up in an education bungle.

The coalition is supportive of the intent of a new national curriculum. However, there are some concerns with the prescribed documentation and the possibility that the content of these documents may very well overwhelm teachers who do not have the funding or support for the training that will be required before the rollout of the national curriculum occurs. For these reasons the coalition will move two amendments. The first relates to the importance of ensuring that schools are given the support they need to successfully implement the Australian curriculum. At the moment, a nationally agreed or consistent approach across all jurisdictions does not exist. This needs to occur so that schools and their teaching staff receive the professional training required to be able to implement the Australian curriculum.

The second amendment suggests a clear representation of the non-government schools with respect to the decision-making process for the future time frames of the national curriculum. In a media release issued last week by the Independent Education Union, the federal secretary, Chris Watt, said he welcomed the amendment. Mr Watt said that it is critical that non-government schools are part of the decision-making process so that they could put forward the needs of the sector. In a direct quote, Mr Watt said:

Around half of all students attend a non-government school at some stage in their life, and it is critical that these schools are a part of the national conversation.

I strongly agree with Mr Watt and believe that all non-government schools should be included in this national conversation.

In my electorate of McPherson there are a number of non-government schools, some of which include both primary and secondary education, including Hillcrest Christian College, King's Christian College, Marymount College, Somerset College, St Andrews Lutheran College and All Saints Anglican School. The non-government sector makes up around a third of the 33 schools within my electorate, and as their federal member I need to ensure that these non-government schools are afforded the same opportunities as their state counterparts when the national curriculum rolls out.

Currently, there is no specific representation from the non-government sector on either the standing council or its advisory officials committee, the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee. So far, all of the major non-government stakeholders that submitted to the inquiry into the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 agreed with the bill's measures and the staged approach to the development and implementation of the Australian curriculum. However, both the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Schools Council of Australia raised concerns about the representation of the non-government sector in the development and consultation process, and had concerns about whether or not there would be support for staff and teachers during the rollout. Other stakeholders had similar concerns. I note from the submission of the Australian Primary Principals Association that it is concerned about the lack of a properly considered and cohesive national implementation plan, along with adequate resourcing to support the curriculum's implementation and the need for appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders.

In addition to the concerns raised here today, I would like to highlight a local issue that is relevant to this debate on the implementation of the national curriculum. Many people relocate to the Gold Coast from interstate, and at present there is no direct correlation between the curricula in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. For example, a child who completed year 2 in Victoria could go into either year 2 or year 3 in Queensland. If the child transferred to the age-appropriate year 2 it is quite possible that the child will already have completed some of the curriculum interstate before transferring to Queensland. However, if the child were to transfer into year 3, that child would most likely have some gaps in their learning since there would be some of the curriculum that had not been covered and they would be a year younger than their classmates. This alone is likely to create angst for the child, their siblings, their parents and their teachers, and this certainly needs to be addressed.

Just this weekend an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin addressed the confusion over the starting age for school children. According to the article, parent groups are now pushing for a national school starting age. A reference to this 2006 report from Access Economics and Atelier Learning Solutions was included in the article to support the push. The report claimed 80,000 children were moved between states with their families each year. The article stated:

… a national school starting age could help children from low socio-economic families get into the education system and gain access to numeracy and literacy programs faster.

Currently in New South Wales, the primary education journey is from kindergarten through to year 6. This spans a total of seven years. The eighth year of schooling begins in year 7 at secondary school. Students are at least four years and five months of age when entering the New South Wales school system. In contrast, although children enter the Queensland system at four years and six months, they will spend eight years in primary school from prep to year 7, and move to secondary school in their ninth year of education to start year 8. In summary, Queensland students spend eight years in primary school and only five years in secondary school, while in New South Wales students spend seven years in primary and six years in secondary.

The Queensland school system is scheduled to be in line with the other jurisdictions by 2015, and year 7 students will make the move to Queensland high schools. Locally, one of our largest state high schools, the Palm Beach Currumbin State High School, is in the final stages of a $9 million expansion that will include classrooms to accommodate the 20 per cent increase in students predicted from the inclusion of year 7 in their school. Whilst this is obviously a separate issue to the bill we are speaking on, it is of paramount importance to Queensland schools and particularly to those schools in my electorate which will also be facing the additional expenses and administrative duties incurred in making room for these students at all schools in both the government and non-government sectors.

While the implementation of the national curriculum is being costed and planned for, these schools may also have to juggle the expansion and transition of year 7 to the high school sector. This is just one local example of the many issues surfacing in relation to the national curriculum. It needs to be considered when planning such a significant change to the existing education sector. In 2008, the Prime Minister said the curriculum would take three years to develop and that its implementation would take place in all jurisdictions from January 2011. It is now August 2011 and there are still many concerns and issues with the national curriculum. In the current legislation, all non-government schools are required to implement the national curriculum by 31 January 2012. We are only months away from that date, so it is imperative that these changes proposed in the bill be made to the existing legislation to allow for more flexibility and more forward planning.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all come to this place to make a difference, to leave a mark and hope that by being here we have made a contribution to a better future—a better future for our children, communities, constituents and this country. That is why I am speaking in support of Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011. This bill is part of the passion and purpose this government has to provide a better future for our nation through providing our children with quality education for the next century, an education that prepares children for a life where they have the skills to adapt to the jobs of tomorrow and the building blocks of lifelong learning.

Consider, for example, the job of a mechanic. As one OECD official put it, 'In 1930 all the coded information for a General Motors car could be captured in 230 pages. Now a single car involves some 15,000 pages of coded knowledge which workers need to access, manage, integrate and evaluate.' As electric cars replace petrol ones and self-drive cars replace the ones we have today, the job of a mechanic is going to steadily change. That is why we need to provide learning opportunities and lifelong skills in an education system that gives all Australian children the same grounding to embark on a future that we can only imagine from its edges. The Australian curriculum is a big step towards such an educational system. (Quorum formed)

When I visit schools in my electorate of Fraser I am always inspired by the passion the children have for the future and by their enthusiasm, energy, imagination and ideas. I would like to pay tribute to the dedication and passion of the teachers who nurture and support the aspirations and goals of the students. Our schools are the places that teach creativity, instil a love of learning and impart critical skills such as literacy and numeracy that form the foundations of our future productivity and prosperity.

Under the Australian national curriculum all Australian children will be studying the same curriculum in the four key subjects of English, mathematics, science and history—key areas that will provide children with the confidence and skills they need for a great education. Developments for a national curriculum in geography, languages and the arts are also underway. As part of the curriculum reforms parents and teachers will be able to go to the Australian curriculum website and view what teachers are expected to teach and the quality of learning expected of students in the four learning areas.

In the ACT the government and non-government schools already commenced the implementation of the curriculum this year. I am pleased to say that schools in my electorate are among the first in the country to start teaching the Australian curriculum. Most other states and territories are using this year to prepare and trial the curriculum before commencing its implementation next year. Teachers are using the time to familiarise themselves with the curriculum and to prepare their teaching programs. In Western Australia schools are trialling the curriculum with a view to commencing implementation once final adjustments are made. In both Queensland and Tasmania the schools in the government, independent and Catholic sectors will introduce the English mathematics and science curricula next year, with history to start in 2013. By amending the Schools Assistance Act 2008 the implementation of the national curriculum will be able to be undertaken by states and territories in a manner that enables government and non-government schools to coordinate this according to an agreed time frame.

Under the National Education Agreement the states and territories have agreed to use resources for the professional support of teachers linked to the curriculum. We are providing support through the national digital resource collection managed by Education Services Australia. Schools and teachers will have access to over 5,000 resources aligned with the Australian curriculum with more to follow. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership is to deliver professional development through its Leading Curriculum Change professional learning flagship program which aims to build the capacity of teachers to enhance implementation of the curriculum. The government also has a major schools reform agenda, a digital strategy for teachers and school leaders, an improving teacher quality national partnership, a national partnership agreement on literacy and numeracy and a major national partnership for school reform in up to 1,500 low-socioeconomic status schools across the country. The last of these is a reform that I am particularly familiar with having been seconded to the Australian Treasury in 2008-09 to work in part on this national partnership. I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated Treasury officials in the Social Policy Division. These and the Australian curricula form part of the record investment of $66 billion in education over four years, investment that every parent, every teacher and every member of the school community will have seen on the ground as they visited Australian schools.

We on this side of the House take education seriously. We know that a great education is critical to raising productivity and living standards and that by boosting the quality and quantity of education we can increase innovation in the economy, provide the skills and do the jobs of the future. We are committed to this reform agenda which is based on Labor values: fairness, quality, accountability and transparency. But we have to compare this to the actions of those opposite. They want to cut $3 billion from our education system and that still does not help them with their $70 billion budget black hole. They do not have an alternative plan for education and they want to cut trade training centres. They want to reduce funding for improving teacher quality. They want to scrap online tools for parents. They are against My School 2.0, which provides an unprecedented level of transparency and information to Australia's parents.

Without a vision for education, you do not have a vision for the nation's future. Standing in the way of the Digital Education Revolution denies thousands of children access to new technology, to the tools of the future. Without the Smarter Schools program disadvantaged students miss out on support to improve their attendance and boost their learning once they arrive at school. Without a Reward for School Improvement program we will not see schools in disadvantaged communities get the recognition and rewards from continuing to improve their school and their education.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. This bill concerns the national curriculum not coalition policies on a variety of other areas.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the honourable member for Fraser.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the online diagnostic tool for parents and teachers? Under the coalition the schools would not benefit from the additional information and resources parents and teachers are now able to access. It is clear the coalition do not and will not stick up for students or schools. They are bereft of ideas, of passion and seemingly bereft of the desire to provide the best possible start to life for all the young Australians through education.

It is exactly this kind of hard work of education reform that we on this side of the House got into politics to achieve. Education is the best antipoverty vaccine that we have and provides the foundations on which Australians can build the life of their choosing. Education means that a child from Ilfracombe can become the first female member of the Queensland bar and our first female Governor-General. The Schools Assistance Amendment Bill brings Catholic independent schools in line with government schools so that all schools will have the same curriculum and the same curriculum implementation timetable. It provides certainty to non-government schools and treats all schools the same. The proposed amendment allows for a more certain legal framework for the non-government sector to implement the Australian curriculum and allow future editions and revisions of the curriculum to be made more efficiently each time it is updated.

The government recognises and respects the role of the non-government schools as part of the great education system of partners in our children's and our nation's future. I have had the privilege of visiting many of these non-government schools and government schools in my own electorate and I have seen with my own eyes the education reforms that are happening there and the great contribution that the Gillard government's school agenda is making. The Australian curriculum will deliver a national standard to all Australian children in English, mathematics, science and history, and making sure that we successfully implement it is absolutely critical.

At the start of the speech I talked about the need for our education system to prepare children for a life where they have the skills to adapt to the jobs of tomorrow and where they have the building blocks of lifelong learning. The amendment to the Schools Assistance Act 2008 is an important step towards providing greater certainty and alignment for all schools in the implementation of a national curriculum in key learning areas. The quality of our education system is our future. Studies have shown that countries with higher maths and science scores grow faster, innovate more, and have stronger economies.

This government takes educational opportunity seriously and we take reform seriously. We want every young Australian to have the chance to fulfil their potential and to be able to meet the demands of a labour market that will change as much in the next 50 years as it has over the last 50 years. I commend the bill to the House.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011. This bill removes the requirement that the national curriculum for the non-government schools must be implemented by 2012. The practical effects of the bill will be, in essence, to do what the coalition has been asking of the government since last November, and that is, firstly, to delay the start of the implementation of the national curriculum on the basis that it is simply not ready and, secondly, to ensure that the non-government schools can also implement the national curriculum to the same timetable as the government schools.

We asked for a delay last November in a motion put to this parliament by Christopher Pyne, the shadow education spokesperson, and seconded by me. We then further moved an amendment to the schools assistance bill in March to ensure that non-government schools would be able to implement the national curriculum at the same time as government schools. We moved these motions and amendments not because we wanted to be obstructionist with regard to the government's policies and plans, but simply because the national curriculum was not ready. Every single stakeholder knew this. The school principals did, the education authorities did, the teachers did, and the parents did. We could see as plain as day that the national curriculum was not ready. But of course the government did not see this and not only voted against our motion last November, but then also against our amendments in March.

It is worth reflecting on some of the stakeholder comments back in 2010. If you look across the board, almost every single stakeholder has said that the national curriculum has serious flaws and that more time was needed for its implementation. For example, the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals has described the national curriculum as being:

… not up to scratch, drowning in content, overlapping subjects such as science and geography and contains no agreement as to how it would be assessed.

The Australian Council of Deans of Science wrote to Minister Garrett asking him to delay the implementation of the science curriculum. The President of the Science Teachers Association, Anna Davis, said there needs to be another round of consultation which includes teachers, which was not included in the first round.

The Mathematical Association of New South Wales claimed the maths courses proposed for years 11 and 12 were too difficult for students with learning difficulties but too easy for those who were gifted students. The History Teachers Association has also written to the minister expressing concern about the national curriculum—and I could go on.

We then had the problem that the government was willing to defer the implementation for the government schools sector but not for the non-government schools sector. For many, many years under both the coalition and Labor governments we have had an implied principle that every school policy that is introduced would apply equally to the government schools and the non-government schools, be that testing, National Safe Schools Frameworks, the My School framework, school starting ages et cetera. The only area where there is not consistency between the non-government schools and the government schools is in the area of funding. So amendments earlier in the year were simply to defer the starting date for the non-government schools sector and to bring it into line with the government schools sector. But of course the Labor government voted against that one also.

So it comes as somewhat of a surprise, but also a welcome surprise, that this amendment is put to the parliament now.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have seen the light!

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have seen the light, as the member for Longman just pointed out. This amendment does give the discretion to the government to defer the implementation of the national curriculum for as long as is required and to ensure that the implementation start date will be consistent between the non-government school sector and the government school sector. We hope on this side of the House that they will defer it until the national curriculum is ready. It is a fairly simple proposition. We just simply ask that they defer the start date until the national curriculum is ready.

The national curriculum is not ready now and it may still take some time before it is ready. We suggest that the government not rush this process, that it takes its time and gets it right, unlike many other things which it rushes and gets wrong. This is a very important measure which they are trying to introduce. It has great impact across 10,000 schools across the country so we simply suggest that the government spends the time, does the work properly, consults with the appropriate groups and gets the national curriculum right before they try to introduce it.

I must say, I have never been enamoured with the concept of a national curriculum. I have always believed that we should have national consistency in our curriculum but not necessarily that we have to have exactly the same curriculum across every single school in the country. However, if we are going to proceed down this path then we need to get it right. I still have some serious concerns with the current draft as it exists at the moment. For example, there is little by way of an overarching framework or a clear direction for the curriculum as it stands. The curriculum has a heavy—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1:45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and at that time the honourable member for Aston will have leave to continue his remarks.