Grievance Debate

Springbank Secondary College

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:18): Unsurprisingly, I want to talk about the absolute shambles of the treatment of the public education system in this state by this government. Let’s turn first to what has just happened to Springbank, although it is not the only example. We know that Springbank Secondary College, when it was called Pasadena High School, was in declining enrolment but was dearly loved by the people who sent their children there and by the students who were there.

Given the declining enrolment, given the numerous rumours that had gone around about whether the school would be closed or whether it would be amalgamated, we decided on this side when we were in government, when I was the minister, that we would go through a proper process: 'Would you like to close and amalgamate with Unley?'—a voluntarily amalgamation process. The vote occurred and that school community said, 'No, we prefer it like this. We are happy to see growth, but we are very happy with the quality of the schooling that we are getting here.'

At that point, I could have done what the minister has just said he is going to do via the paper and gone through a ministerial review process, and within three months—gone. Instead, I listened to what that school community asked for and I said, 'Let's give them the money and the space to turn this school into a growth school.'

That took $10 million from Building Better Schools, which would not have been assigned under the normal criteria for most of the schools. Valley View, Findon and Pasadena had additional money in order to be able to turn around. As the minister tried to allude to, I said that there had to be a business plan. There had to be a plan for how that was going to be used to grow, but crucial to that was the $10 million—absolutely crucial.

What has happened in the last couple of years? They have rebranded, they have a new name, they have a new uniform and they have seen a growth in enrolments. What they have not yet seen is the expenditure of that $10 million. What they have not yet seen is that money that was given to help them become the school of choice be spent in order to become that school of choice.

What they have seen instead is that they have been forced to use some of the money for maintenance. They have done work on what facilities they would like and they have cleared the ground in order to have a new facility, which was proudly talked about in one of their recent newsletters, then suddenly the minister decides, 'The school isn't growing fast enough. I'm not happy with this.'

How did he tell them? Did he go and have a conversation? No. He had a conversation with a journalist and made sure it was in the paper. Now he is saying to the school, 'By the way, at the end of the year you're probably going to be gone.' What does that do to the confidence of that school? In here he says, 'There will be a process. It means that we can consult with the community.' What that tells the community is that this school is done. How do you grow enrolments in an environment where you have taken the $10 million away, you are not putting those facilities in and you are not listening to the people who are already at that school? What does that say?

One of the reasons people valued that school and wanted to see it grow was that it is not as big as some of the others. For some students, that is ideal. I remember while I was waiting to receive the vote from the school community that I received postcards from students at that school saying why it was special to them. A lot of the students in the disability unit told me what a difference that school made to them.

Are they going to break their hearts and try to persuade this minister? Are they going to write those cards and say what matters to them, or are they going to have to just give up and accept that this minister could not care less? If he did, even if he were concerned about the growth of the school, before the money has been spent to help it grow, he would have talked to them and he would have listened to them.

The idea that the person you talk to first is the journalist and you are going to give the story exclusively to that journalist—no call came through for a comment from the opposition, so that is when you know it is an exclusive: 'Just put this out. Just tell that school community when they open up the paper in the morning. Tell them.'

We have Adelaide High School, where suburbs in Labor electorates were cut out of the Adelaide High School zone overnight. Some of those poor kids in primary school who thought they were going to go with their friends to Adelaide High were told, 'No, you're going to Springbank.' Well, now where are they going to go? Are they going to be crammed into Unley? Are they going to be crammed into Hamilton? What kind of planning is this?

Public education needs the backing of the minister and the government. It needs the backing for the parents, for the students and for the staff, and that requires respect to be shown. This minister has treated this school disgracefully.