Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted and very proud to rise to speak to the Australian government response to Teaching and Learning (maximising our investment in Australian schools). I am equally pleased to be able to record that three of the four very active members of the committee which addressed this question are here in the chamber: Senator Wright from the Greens political party and my colleagues Senator McKenzie and Senator Alex Gallacher. It was at the initiative of our group. It did not come from shadow ministerial, ministerial or any other sources; we just decided in conversation as a committee that we should look at this. This particular report was not addressed at Gonski level; it was addressed right down at the classroom level. Why can't teachers teach and what is stopping children from learning? This was developed around six pillars: the first being the reasons and causes of disadvantage for children; the second being parental involvement; the third being school autonomy; the fourth being student behaviour; the fifth being quality student-teachers; and, finally, professional learning for classroom teachers.

I am very pleased and proud to see that the government has responded in the way they have to the 23 recommendations contained within a bipartisan and unanimous report. We learned that the government has established a Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, partially to give effect to the recommendations and to ensure that they are closely examined with a view to implementation, and that many of these recommendations will be or have been passed on to the Council of Australian Governments' Educational Council so that it can be scrutinised by a council of COAG. We understand that the report in its entirety is to be referred to the chair of the Educational Council. So it is one of those situations where, as backbenchers, you often say to yourself, 'What's the point of going through all these exercises? Why do you ask for submissions? Why do you go around the country taking evidence and writing a report with many recommendations?' and you think that there has been no action as a result of it. I am sure my colleagues in the chamber will share my appreciation of the fact that the hard work we did in this particular committee will see its way through to improved outcomes for children—improved educational outcomes and improved social outcomes.

I refer to those six pillars—the first being disadvantaged students. We are well aware of and recognise low-socioeconomic students, those with disabilities or those with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. But, because so many of us on the committee have a very keen rural, regional and remote bias and bent, we were able to add in students living in rural, remote and regional areas to the group of disadvantaged students. I do not think that has been recognised, but it is now pleasing to see increasingly the inclusion of students at primary, secondary and higher education in the dialogue. Some of the recommendations go to that.

The second, as Senator Lines quite correctly has addressed, is the issue associated with parents. We came to learn that parental expectations, be they high or low, are critical to the outcome for the children. If the parents have a high expectation from a very young age, children are more likely to realise it. We also had evidence that it is the number of words that children hear as young children—not necessarily words spoken to them but words they hear in conversation. The greater the range of vocabulary with which they have contact the better their literacy will be in the very early years going through to later years. These are not costly impositions or implementations; they are just recognition that children need to hear words and that parents need to be encouraged to actually, in their turn, say to their children, 'We expect you to be the best you can.' That is not socioeconomically backgrounded. It is not rural and regional. It should not be those with disabilities or those with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background.

The third related to school autonomy, and there has been much spoken about the right of the principal to direct and interact with their community, to take on board the advice of parents and other groups and to run their schools to the best effect for their community—particularly for the children.

When it comes to behaviour, the committee thought it was a shame that, when you speak to teachers or those who have left teaching, they will tell you that it is poor behaviour that often drives them out of teaching. Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, the only teacher who came and presented wonderful information was from your home state of Tasmania. If I can quote from that gentleman, these were the words he said to the committee:

Well-behaved children learn a great deal better and a great deal more than poorly behaved children.

He spoke of the problems associated with trying to control a classroom and with trying to teach children, particularly if there is a bully in a classroom. It is not just removal of the bully; it is the fact that you return to a classroom of timid, scared young children who themselves are not in a position to learn. Whilst the government's response speaks to behavioural problems, I still think it is the elephant in the room that we have to address in Australian education. I look at education in Singapore, China, Finland and other places. I have spoken about this in this place before. You will notice the thing that is in common to the countries that are always put up on pedestals for being better educational outcome countries than us: the behaviour of children in the classrooms. I really do appeal to government that we make sure we address the opportunities for those who want to learn and for the teachers to teach them. Some of our recommendations go to that question.

I speak of quality teaching of graduates, and I mentioned that the government is already moving to lift the quality, professionalism and status of the teaching profession. We are training far too many young student teachers. We have a situation where too few of them know where the real opportunities lie when they graduate. We have, in many instances, less than 50 per cent of student teachers believing they are classroom ready, but, worse than that, being asked to teach away from the disciplines they undertook in their university training. Again, we directed ourselves into that area. I am very pleased to see that the government is seriously looking at this whole question with those who provide teacher training to make sure that we are identifying those best equipped, that we are making sure that they receive the best formal education and that they are receiving practica in the classrooms so that they can get a good sense of what the profession is all about, and then, having graduated, they are classroom ready. They will have the mentors that Senator Lines quite rightly suggested were not available years ago and they will be given every opportunity to teach in the field in which they are trained.

The final area to which I referred was professional learning for classroom teachers. It was mystifying to me that so many of our young teachers do not have permanency and are unlikely to get a job at the end of the teaching year because of budgets and other constraints. They are quite often put off at the end of the teaching year—about now—and will possibly be employed again at the beginning of the next year. And we also heard that when it came to professional learning, teachers—generally younger ones, who were not permanent—often did not have the opportunity to participate in professional learning or professional development programs in the schools. Surely, the group that requires that professional development is the group of younger and less experienced teachers.

We also pleaded—I am very pleased to see that, in the government's response, they have noted this—for the opportunity for mentoring by senior teachers, who can sit in the classrooms of more junior teachers. And we pleaded for the opportunity for younger, more junior teachers to sit in the classrooms of more experienced teachers so that they can genuinely interact.

There would not be a person in this place who does not agree that we have to give every opportunity to every child and every young person in this country to be the best that they can be. We all know that 'educo' the Latin root of the work 'education' means, 'I lead you out of the darkness of ignorance.' That is what the Latin term for education is. I am delighted to think the Australian government has responded to this report in such a positive way.