Ministerial Statement

Education System Reports

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (14:05): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Today, I have tabled three reports and draw the attention of the house to a fourth that is relevant to those tabled here today. The reports are a report by Professor Linda Graham, the Graham report into suspensions, exclusions and expulsions; a report by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, Helen Connolly, titled The Blame Game; and a report by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), Earning and Learning Pathways, with a particular focus on disengaged students. I also draw to the attention of the house the interim report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, released in October.

In September 2019, with the encouragement and support of all sides of the parliament—and I acknowledge the member for Port Adelaide and the Hon. Tammy Franks in particular in relation to this—I commissioned a significant review in relation to student discipline and complaints handling processes in government schools. Professor Linda Graham from the Centre for Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology was asked to lead the inquiry. It was conducted under the auspices of the Child Development Council, and I want to thank the council, its staff and particularly its chair, Dr Anne Glover AO, for the wide range of support they provided to Professor Graham in undertaking this important work.

The final report, tabled today, presents the evidence, findings and recommendations from extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders across the state. The report identifies that South Australian government schools are, for the most part, safe and orderly. Most of our children and young people are performing well, and the overwhelming majority will not be subject to suspensions, exclusions or expulsions. Of 177,246 students enrolled in our government schools in 2019, 5.8 per cent received one or more suspensions and 0.5 per cent received an exclusion.

A majority of students who have been subject to suspensions during the years studied have been subject only to a single suspension in that year. In 2019, for example, 56.8 per cent of students who received a suspension received only one suspension. This group accounted for just over one-quarter of all suspensions. At the other end of the spectrum, 7.8 per cent of the students who received a suspension received five suspensions or more. This group, which appears to amount to less than half of 1 per cent of all students across our schools, accounts for around one-quarter of all suspensions.

The report is particularly concerned about how the system works with this much smaller group of students who have been subject to significant numbers of suspensions or exclusions. The report offers 76 recommendations about systemic arrangements and processes and notably recommends the implementation of a multitiered system of support framework designed to improve students' academic, social, emotional and behavioural outcomes.

The Commissioner for Children and Young People, Helen Connolly, has also undertaken a related body of work over the last year. Her report, titled The Blame Game, approaches a similar range of questions from the point of view of our children and young people. Similarly to the Graham report, the commissioner's report identifies a number of concerns about the use of exclusionary discipline in our schools.

It encourages us to question the effect of exclusionary discipline on existing behavioural challenges and on parents and carers, whether the use of exclusionary discipline reinforces behaviours it is ostensibly intended to address and the potential impact of exclusionary practices on students with disability, Aboriginal students and those with complex social, emotional and behavioural needs.

The reports argue that exclusionary discipline should be considered as a last resort and that schools and systems should ensure that there are mechanisms to effectively involve children and young people in decisions that affect them. One area of divergence between these two reports is in relation to alternative learning settings, such as Flexible Learning Options (FLO). The Blame Game describes examples of how the FLO mechanism is able to be used to very positive effect; the Graham report includes a recommendation that it be decommissioned. As we consider the implications of these recommendations, it is timely that a third report directly relevant to this matter has also now been received, which will inform our response.

In 2018, I announced that the Department for Education was commissioning research into earning and learning pathways to inform policy in the areas of vocational education and training in schools and careers pathways. The earning and learning research partnership explored the reasons why a substantial proportion of successive cohorts of students in South Australia had not completed the SACE or were identified as potential non-completers.

The Australian Centre for Education and Research (ACER) was awarded the research partnership, and its survey research indicated that around 40 per cent of leavers were not engaged in education, training or employment in early March of the year after leaving school. Extrapolating to all leavers, this gives us an estimate of around 1,600 school leavers who have not made a successful transition to earning or learning activities. Survey respondents were asked, in effect, what improvements were most important to assist their cohort: 31 per cent stated that schools should help the students develop social and interpersonal skills and 22 per cent believed that schools should help students to develop intrapersonal skills, such as resilience.

The ACER research indicated that some groups of students were more likely to experience difficulties. For example, FLO students were less likely than other students to be undertaking or have completed the four compulsory SACE requirements, to be planning to stay at school until the end of the year or be planning to complete SACE this year. Among those who leave before they finish year 12, former FLO students were more likely than other students to not be in employment, education or training, were less happy with what they had achieved since leaving school and were less likely to strongly agree that they had successfully made the transition from school.

Finally, it is relevant that in October 2020 the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability released its interim report, which raises issues also considered in the Graham report. These include the framing of access to education as a human right under international law and the need for schools to provide reasonable education adjustments, to address complaint processes and to address exclusions experienced by students with disability, including the disproportionate use of suspensions and expulsions. The response to the recommendations of the Graham report and the commissioner's report will inform and may likely serve to constitute the state government's response to education-specific recommendations of the royal commission in its final report.

Significant bodies of work have been undertaken to inform these reports. They include provocations to the system, and there are some challenges to longstanding practices which have evolved in themselves to respond to the impact of complexity and challenging behaviours in a school setting. A serious and comprehensive response is necessary. A precipitate response would be a mistake. The government will undertake significant analysis in relation to the detail of the recommendations and look to incorporate further feedback from the public to inform our consolidated response.

A response portal for the three reports will be open for public comment. It can be found at the 2020 inquiries and reports page of the Department for Education website. We are asking that people provide their comments by 15 January. As we work to identify interventions that will better support student attendance, a reduction in the use of exclusionary discipline and improved student outcomes for all, it is important to remember that this research is not happening in a vacuum. The system is constantly working to improve how we support vulnerable cohorts, including students with a disability.

One of the significant benefits of the National School Reform Agreement, which I signed with the commonwealth in late 2018, is that, as the number of students with a disability increases in the system, the funding automatically follows. The new funding has seen greater investment in supporting students with a disability than ever before. In 2019, preschool children with disability were allocated a total of $11.38 million, compared with $7.22 million in 2018. In 2019, school students with disability, including those in specialist education options, were allocated $255.2 million compared with $230.6 million in 2018, a 10.66 per cent increase in 12 months.

As at the term 3 census this year, 21,115.7 FTE students were being supported under our Inclusive Education Support Program, an increase of 10.5 per cent from the previous year when it was 19,111.2. The largest increases occur in the areas of autism and complex social and emotional behaviour. In preschools as at term 3, 230 have been funded at the extensive level compared with 66 in 2018. There is no lack of funding to support students with complex needs, and there is no lack of will on behalf of government, or schools, or staff to give those students every support they need to succeed.

While these reports identify concerns in relation to how our schooling system responds to certain cohorts of students, we need to keep in context that the schooling experience is overwhelmingly positive for the vast majority of our children and young people. But our ambition is to have every child have that positive experience, and I thank the authors and all who have contributed to these reports for their insight and their recommendations on how we can do better for those children who are not getting the same benefit as their peers.

There is one final and extremely important point to make, and I am sure all members of the house will agree with me. In our state, we have an education workforce approaching 50,000 people who are overwhelmingly dedicated, professional, compassionate and committed. Our teachers, our principals and the staff who support them are doing great work.

Education is a calling, and at all times my experience in this portfolio has been that just about every single person who works in education is always interested in how we can seek to constantly improve the work we do, including how we support those most vulnerable students in our community. This year, more than ever, that critical leadership role played by our educators and our communities has been on display. I trust that all members will agree with me that we are extremely grateful to them.