SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CERTIFICATE OF EDUCATION

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:49): I move:

That this house calls on the state government to undertake a review of the new SACE following concerns expressed by educators.

I make clear at the start I am not anti the new SACE: I just believe that some issues have arisen. I am sure that within the government and the SACE board, and so on, they would be monitoring these issues, but I think the new SACE is an important development and it is vital that we look at what has happened and whether there are any real grounds for modification in the future.

I made a very detailed submission, in writing and in person, to the inquiry into SACE which was chaired by the Hon. Greg Crafter. The new SACE is trying to ensure that we do not simply have a secondary education system that is focused on the minority who go to university (as important as they are) but that it also has proper recognition and certification of those not going to university, for example, going into trades, or whatever. I think that objective is reflected in the way in which the new SACE has been set up.

Recently, there was a gathering of alumni at the University of Adelaide and I spoke with Greg Crafter and discussed some of these issues. One of the contentious points has been the so-called research project which is mandatory under the new SACE. In discussing that with Greg, he said the group who reviewed SACE took that idea from the International Baccalaureate. I am a great believer in research, if that is really what it is, and I have a habit of talking to young people wherever I come across them—working at checkouts, or whatever—and I met a young lass recently working at Woolworths at Blackwood and I asked, 'How is your study going?' and she said, 'I have just done year 12 at Cabra.' I said, 'That's great. What did you do for your independent research project? and she said, 'I learnt the guitar.' That is a great thing to do, and I have asked around and one lad said he made a go-cart. There is a benefit in doing those things but the question is: is it really a research project, according to that title, to learn the guitar? I wish I had learned to play the guitar or some other musical instrument when I was younger—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I'll stick to singing. Is that really a research project? I think, in talking to Greg Crafter, that maybe the title is not appropriate. If it is a broadening activity, then fine, call it that, but I do not think we should be pretending that it is a forerunner to the sort of research you might get at university—stratified random samples, and all that sort of thing.

I think that is one point. I noticed in The Advertiser a month ago a report about a survey of year 12 students. I am not sure what the sample size was, but two-thirds of them said they wanted the research project to be optional, not mandatory. That is one issue, and I am sure the minister and the SACE board will look at that.

Another concern that has been raised is: what has happened to certain subjects? I am sure the minister would be well aware that some of the casualties of the new SACE—and it is not just the new SACE—include a dramatic falling off as a result of the four subjects. There has been a dramatic falling off, for example, in the study of geology. I am told that there is only one geology course offered at secondary level in the state and that is at St Peters College. I could be wrong, but that is what I have been told by staff at St Peters College. It is the only school teaching geology at secondary level. We have a lot of people doing geology at university but, if you want to feed into the university sector, particularly given our mining boom, one would imagine you would need more people focused on geology well before they got to university.

In fact, I am a great believer that people's interest in subjects and vocations starts a lot earlier than secondary school. Often around years 6 and 7 in primary school young people have an inkling of what they may do. So, I think as part of this review there needs to be a look at what has happened to some of the subjects. Geography is almost becoming extinct as a subject. History will get revived under the national curriculum, I believe. Languages have suffered. I recently read some articles by three (I think they are all professors at Monash) expressing their great concern at the failure in Australia to develop, implement and achieve a second language policy.

I am not sure what it is: I suspect one might be unkind and say it is a form of arrogance on our part that we do not need to bother with other people's languages and, by implication, their culture, by not teaching, understanding and promoting it in our schools and elsewhere. I suspect that is part of the problem. So, that is another issue that needs to be looked at: the restriction in the choice of subjects. If you are choosing four subjects that does not give you much scope to do much else.

I was reading late last night that in some comparable certificates elsewhere there is a community service obligation component. Within the new SACE there can be an element of that, but in some of the equivalents interstate and overseas there is an explicit requirement that students at secondary school get involved in some community activity. I have been a great believer in that for a long time. Our students at secondary school level should get involved, whether they are in Scouts, Guides, CFS cadets, Air Force cadets, St John Ambulance, helping in the local nursing home, or any of those sorts of things.

We are seeing the consequences of a lack of commitment by people to their community, in terms of service. If we are not careful, I predict that in a few years we will probably not have too many volunteers in anything. We also have to develop and reinforce community groups in the community. I want to talk to the government about the issue of how we do that, because otherwise we are not going to have too many community groups left.

In terms of the new SACE you cannot fit everything in, but there needs to be an explicit requirement in the secondary school program that students undertake quite specific community involvement and serve the community in some way or another. I think that is the best form of nationalism, rather than some of the other jingoistic stuff that goes on. If you want to be part of the community, you learn to be part of the community by serving others in the community and helping others.

Another point that has been raised (by someone I know who is head of a middle school at one of our private schools) is that with the new SACE there is a tremendous amount of paperwork and what he calls bureaucracy. For the year 12 students, their number, if you like, is drawn by a computer and that student's work for the whole year has to be physically transported to the SACE headquarters for moderation and checking.

There is a lot of bureaucratic work and a lot of paperwork involved. Our teachers for whom I have great respect are underpaid and often undervalued. With this new SACE we have to look at the bureaucratic imposition and the paperwork imposition: is it reasonable, is it appropriate, and is it resulting in students getting the education that we want them to have?

I will make my final point. Traditionally, the secondary school certificate has been a vetting process for the universities. Some of the staff at the university I have spoken to see the new SACE as a dumbing-down. That might just be the (often elitist) view expressed by some people at university. They have concerns about literacy and numeracy, and so on, but the view put to me was that the universities accept the new SACE because it saves them from spending money on a vetting process themselves. The new SACE is trying to do a whole lot of things; as I said—broaden the programs and outcomes for all students and provide a selection process for universities—and, hopefully, in the process it will help create good and constructive citizens.

I conclude by indicating that I am not against the new SACE, having had some input into it, but I am just highlighting the need for the government to monitor it closely, and for the SACE Board to closely monitor what has happened. Certainly, teachers and students should not to be backward in expressing a view about how they feel it has gone—it has only been fully implemented this year, for year 12—but convey those thoughts direct to the minister or the SACE Board. I think it would be in the best interests of all South Australians if that were to happen.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.