NATIONAL LITERACY AND NUMERACY TESTS

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:07): My question is for the Minister for Education. Why did it take a six-month investigation to conclude that an Elizabeth Vale Primary School teacher was guilty of interfering with NAPLAN testing, and will the minister advise of any disciplinary action taken and if this teacher is now being paid a full-time salary while working part time at the same school?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Education, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (15:08): I thank the honourable member for the question. I am not entirely sure what matter he is talking about. I assume it is the—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The member has clarified it. This is the matter that concerned, I think, some allegations that were made about a teacher in relation to irregularities around the NAPLAN testing. It received a little bit of media this week about the publication of a broad range of allegations which ultimately were not proven, so the teacher was then subject to a lesser form of discipline than termination.

I must say I share the member for Unley's concern about the length of time it takes to investigate these matters. I think the delays are unacceptably long, and I think it makes things difficult for the department and also difficult for the teachers, but let's remember why these delays are put in place. They are processes insisted upon by those representing the relevant teachers. The lengthy process in natural justice is something that is insisted upon by those representing teachers. So, there is a bit of crunchy and smooth here.

If you want lengthy processes that test everything, they are going to go on for some time, and that places a burden on departments, like the education department that wants to get on with quickly resolving these things and get on with the business of teaching, and I think it also places unnecessary burden on the teacher who is subject to these allegations before they are being tested.

I do agree that we need to do something about speeding up that process. We are at the moment consulting on a set of arrangements for the way in which we actually deal with disciplinary matters; so, the employment arrangements concerning teachers are the subject of a paper that will be the subject of consultation, and I hope that we can get to a speedier process. It is worth bearing in mind that, in respect of these matters, members also have rights of appeal that they can insist on, and that extends the matter even further.

What I can tell members about this matter—and because this is a teacher who continues in the system, I do not think it appropriate to go chapter and verse into the details of these matters—is that the school community has been made aware of the nature of the findings that have been made. I do not think it is appropriate for me to publicly canvass these matters here, except to say that there were some inappropriate dealings with the ACARA test.

In light of this particular matter, there are some very clear guidelines for principals that deal with the way in which these tests are meant to be dealt with; for instance, how early teachers get the test before the actual test is administered and the sort of level of assistance that can be provided within the classroom when the children are taking the test.

Those clear guidelines I am now insisting that all principals sign off on and warrant that they have explained them to the teachers who are carrying out the tests so that we will not have any further instances of these breaches of protocol—and certainly the suggestion that was asserted in this case that the teacher was unaware of the rules.