HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SENIOR SECONDARY ASSESSMENT BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I wish to take the opportunity to respond to one or two issues raised by the minister in her reply to the second reading, on behalf of the government, and to pursue one or two general issues. At the outset, I note that in her contribution the minister claimed that under parliamentary privilege I had impugned the professional reputation of Professor Alan Reid, one of Australia's most distinguished educators. She then went on with a long defence of Professor Reid, and then said that I should make an unreserved apology for unfairly impugning one of the nation's most eminent educators.

I just remind members of exactly what I said during the second reading because, as is often the case with members of the government, they are very thin-skinned about these things and claim impugned integrity, defamation, smearing and a variety of other things without its being accurate. What I said during the second reading was that I had concerns about the appointment of Professor Reid as the chair of the committee. I then pointed out that Professor Reid, together with the Teachers Union, had trenchantly opposed the introduction of basic skills tests in South Australia. I said that Professor Reid was someone who, over his career, had been opposed to simple things, such as basic skills testing, and that if he was opposed to that sort of basic skills testing measurement I was very concerned about what his attitude might be to things such as examinations and testing in years 11 and 12.

The minister in her reply never really addressed that issue; she never really denied the accuracy of that claim, because she could not. I will not waste the time of the committee, but there are literally hundreds of references and transcripts of Professor Reid's statements at that time—and I might say (not that I easily take offence) that some of the things Professor Reid said about me as minister in the Liberal government and the views I represent were much more vigorous and robust than what I have just read out from the Hansard debate. The minister said:

The honourable member's claims about Professor Reid's opposition to the basic skills test are based on crude over-generalisations. It is surely the role of an academic to subject government policy to critical scrutiny, provided the scrutiny is based on evidence. Professor Reid, like many others in the community, has been concerned about the nature and effects of standardised tests on the quality of teaching and learning. Many of these sorts of concerns have been borne out by overseas research and the use of standardised tests—

and so on. The minister went on to say:

The claim that someone is who concerned about standardised tests lacks interest in improving standards in literacy and numeracy is patently absurd.

I agree with that statement, but nowhere did I say that Professor Reid was uninterested in improving standards in literacy and numeracy. It is the typical straw man, or straw woman, argument to construct a false premise and then say that this was an outrageous impugning of the professor's integrity.

I strongly disagree with Professor Reid's educational approach to things such as testing, and so on. However, he is entitled to his view—as, indeed, am I, and I suspect the majority of South Australians, in relation to basic skills testing. He is in a very significant minority, with the Teachers Union and some elements of the Labor Party, in their trenchant opposition to the testing of students for literacy and numeracy. I am sure that he has genuinely held views on the issue and, certainly, nothing I said—contrary to the claims of the minister—impugned his integrity. It fundamentally disagreed with his educational philosophy and approach, which is quite an unrelated matter to the issue of integrity.

So, I think the notion that in some way I have smeared the professor or attacked his integrity, as I said, is a straw woman argument. It is certainly not what I said. I remain trenchantly opposed to his views on those sorts of issues. As I said, tempted as I was to put on the record all of Professor Reid's views on testing, and some of his views and statements about the Liberal Party, the Liberal government and myself as minister, I will not do so. That may be for another day.

The other matter that I raised during the second reading debate with respect to this bill, and also the bill that we adopted last night (and I am still seeking a response from the minister), is that there is this general issue with SSABSA, obviously, and with the bill that we discussed last night (the Education (Compulsory Education Age) Amendment Bill) as to the critical notions of retention rates, which is part of the State Strategic Plan.

The government still has the goal of 90 per cent of students, by a certain date, staying in school for year 12. However, the other measure that the minister has used in another place and publicly is something short in description as the 'SACE completion rate', as I understand it. I think the minister has said that 55 per cent of year 12 students complete the SACE.

I asked a series of questions during the second reading debate, to which I have not yet received a reply. The first one was: can the minister provide a table of the SACE completion rate figures over the last five years (or however long the minister happens to have them for)? Secondly, I sought clarification as to the precise nature of the calculation called the 'SACE completion rate', that is, the apparent retention rate as a calculation of those students who started off in a year 8 cohort some five years earlier and who five years later are still undertaking year 12—they might not complete it, but they are undertaking year 12. Is the SACE completion rate the minister uses—if it is 55 per cent—saying that, to five years ago, 55 of 100 students in year 8 actually end up completing the SACE certificate?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I undertake to provide that response later in this process.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to get that advice at some stage during the debate. The minister is correct in that some information was placed on the record that was not exactly relevant to the question I put to the minister and the government. The figures the minister is talking about, I think, are attendance figures, that is, 3 per cent had unexplained absences, or something along those lines.

The minister is currently indicating that 55 per cent of people complete SACE. I want to know how that figure is calculated. I have put one possibility. I will leave that to be answered this afternoon. In terms of the 55 per cent figure, clearly there must be figures over the past five years or so. The retention rate figures I can get from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

I have seen those movements. I think I quoted some of them in the second reading debate, so I am relaxed about that. That is publicly available. However, the SACE completion figure is not one I am aware of being publicly available, and that is the thing the minister is talking about. I am happy to receive that information at a later stage of the committee debate. The Minister for Education has indicated, quite rightly, that this bill is critical. The government has indicated that this bill underpins the development of the Future SACE.

In response to a number of questions asked in last night's debate, the minister referred to the government's plans and commitments in relation to Future SACE. A number of the issues I want to explore during committee—and in particular clause 1—relate to how this bill underpins the Future SACE and some of the changes the government is implementing. I have some specific questions in relation to the government announcements in relation to assessment, etc.

I had asked some questions of the minister in relation to information, which I am sure SSABSA would have readily available— for example, the existing subjects that are offered at year 12 and the percentage of breakdown of the assessment modes; that is, mathematics had 50 per cent examination and 50 per cent school assessment and English studies may well have 30 per cent. That is information which, I know, is available through SSABSA.

It may well be just oversight that it was not provided in the second reading response, but I ask the minister whether or not her advisers and the government would be prepared to provide that information to me and any other members of the committee who might be interested in that issue.

The point I want to pursue here is that some of the questions I want to raise which are critical to the SSABSA and Future SACE debate relate to the various powers of the government and the board. The minister will know that I am moving on behalf of the Liberal Party amendments later on in relation to the power of the government to control the SSABSA.

The current act makes quite clear that on issues of curriculum and assessment the SSABSA is independent. This bill will suggest some changes, and we will debate those specific changes as we go through the committee stage. At the moment we have an act—a law—which provides that SSABSA is in control of curriculum and assessment. At the same time, we have the minister and government announcing that there will be new assessment procedures. Admittedly after the result of an inquiry—but ultimately we still have to work within the law of the land—the minister is announcing that the government has made decisions that there will be changes to the structure and framework of SACE, there will be changes to assessment and there will be a downgrading in some subjects in the use of examinations—all of those sorts of decisions are being announced by the government.

What I am asking the minister at the outset is: what power does the minister currently have, and will the minister highlight under the act where the minister has the power to make those decisions? Or is the government's argument that the SSABSA as it is currently constituted has passed a valid motion that in essence replicates the government's announcements? That is, the government says, 'Hey; these things will change,' and the actual decision making process is that the board has passed a motion which in essence authorises that.

I am asking this before the lunch break, because I want to know how the government is making these changes. If any government can come along and say, 'We will change the whole of the SACE', this whole notion of SSABSA as it currently exists being independent and in control of curriculum and assessment lasts only as long as the government lasts. Each government can come along and say, 'We are turning the whole of the SACE and SSABSA upside down, and this will be a requirement of years 11 and 12.'

If that is the case, so be it, but the current law provides that the minister does not have the power, yet for some months the minister has made a number of announcements about what will be implemented. So, it is a fundamental question for the minister to explain to the committee what legal basis this government is using to implement these changes at the moment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that they will be not be implemented until 2009 if and when the new board implements them. The proposed Future SACE is to be developed by the SACE steering committee. That includes the CE of the current board. The new board will be asked to consider and endorse the development work being undertaken.

Several questions were asked by the honourable member in relation to some statistics. I can say to him that 45 per cent of students do not currently complete their year 12 SACE; 70 per cent of young people do not currently undertake university studies; approximately 1,200 16 year olds will be supported by the new legislation who would otherwise have dropped out of school. In South Australia in 2007, 76 per cent of 16 year olds are in year 11 at school; 14 per cent of 16 year olds are in year 10; and not quite 1 per cent of 16 year olds are in Year 9. In 2007 the year 8 to 12 full-time equivalent apparent retention rate increased from 72.4 per cent in 2006 to 74.5 per cent. In 2007 the year 10 to 12 FTE apparent retention rate increased from 75.3 per cent in 2006 to 76.1 per cent.

In South Australia in 2006, 87 per cent of 16 year olds were enrolled in full-time education compared to 65 per cent of 17 year olds. This is an increase from 2005, when 86.1 per cent of 16 year olds and 64 per cent of 17 year olds were enrolled in full-time education. In 2001, 83 per cent of 16 year olds and 59.7 per cent of 17 year olds were enrolled in full-time education. In 2006, 97.1 per cent of 15 year olds were enrolled in full-time education.

In relation to SACE, I am advised that it actually puts in place a new board that will implement the changes as recommended by the SACE review (I think that was another question asked by the honourable member).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: First, I thank the minister for the statistics she has provided. They are interesting and informative, but I note (and I think the minister has taken it on advice) that they are not actually the questions I put. So I assume that, over the lunchbreak, the minister will still take on notice the specific questions I asked about completion rates.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I will provide further information.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you. The minister's information in relation to 16 year olds was interesting, but I can tell her that when I was at school 2 per cent of my year 7 class were 16 year olds. It was one out of 53 students; one particular student was held back for, I think, five years whilst he tried to complete his progressive certificate.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: And now he is the president here?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No; he is not the president here. The figures the minister gave about the percentage of students in various year levels were interesting—and I thank her for that additional information—but, as I said, they are not the specific statistics I sought.

I want to clarify the key question I put to the minister. As I understand it, the minister accepts that under the current law neither the minister nor the government has the legal authority to implement these changes and is saying that we will not have this particular Future SACE that has been talked about unless, some time next year, the new board actually passes a lawful motion which approves it.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: That is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is important because, as the minister rightly pointed out (and I think she quoted common law), persons elected to boards are not there to represent the views of the bodies they represent. So, in theory, all those government educators appointed by the minister to the new board are not there to represent the views of the government school sector or the minister (and I said, in theory); therefore, it is entirely possible that the new board will vote down the Future SACE. Based on what the minister has just said, there is the legal authority that the new board, if elected, can vote it down. It is more likely that the new board would say, 'We are happy with 90 per cent of this, but we are not happy with certain other aspects of it,' and could implement its own version of the Future SACE. The minister has just clarified what was my understanding, as a non-lawyer, of the legislation and what has occurred.

I must say that that information will be news to many in the education sector, because there have been many announcements and statements made by the minister and the government about the implementation of Future SACE. There were recommendations, the minister issued various statements and briefings, slide show presentation summaries (which I have seen) were made indicating that this is what will be implemented and that these were the decisions the government agreed with from the SACE review (there are a small number it did not agree to). To all intents and purposes, everyone has been led to believe that the government has made decisions and that this is what will be implemented; that, as from 2009, this is what the shape and structure of Future SACE will be.

I think it is important, now that we have clarified the legal position, that those within secondary schools in all the sectors—because it is not just the government sector but the Catholic sector and the independent schools sector as well—realise that there is no legal authority for the minister to do that. That has been confirmed by the government in this committee debate. It will only be some time into next year, if and when the new SSABSA makes a decision, that it will be implemented in that particular way.

Therefore, those of us who have a view (and I suspect that at this stage it is possibly a minority view because of the lack of public debate) or concerns about assessments and their importance in terms of a balance between external assessment and, in particular, examinations in some subjects, will and should take up the opportunity to lobby future SSABSA members—because it will be their decision, and their decision alone, in relation to the issue.

As I said, that is in theory. I accept that it will probably be a brave government school nominee on the board who takes a position different to his or her minister. That person might end up like the police officers in Russell Hinze's police force, who were posted to the furthest police stations in outer Queensland (wherever that equivalent is in South Australia). That may well occur in the department. Nevertheless, I think that is important because, as I said, this bill is underpinning the future SACE and, in my view, when it is properly discussed it will be controversial with some groups and sections of the community.

What the minister has said so far is correct, in that there has been little opposition to what has been the juggernaut in respect of the introduction of the Future SACE. Other than the Independent Schools Association having the temerity to raise its head above the parapet and challenge some of the provisions in the bill about the board's composition and the independence of the board, the minister is right to say that there has been precious little opposition to the Future SACE juggernaut that we have seen.

Leading on from that concession from the minister in relation to legal authority, can I confirm therefore that the recommendations, which I understand the government is supporting, are in relation to the assessment of year 12 subjects? As I outlined in the second reading debate, for those subjects that do have a combination of a school assessment and examination, in the past there has been a moderating process, if I can put it that way. I gave the example that, based on school assessment, if a particular teacher at a school marked all of his or her students at the A level and then those students participated in an examination and they all reflected a C level in terms of performance, there is a facility available within the current SACE which allows SSABSA to say, 'Hello, there is something going on here. That teacher is unfairly advantaging his or her students, compared to the rest of the state, by giving all of his or her students As when their performance, in reality, does not deserve an A classification.' The current system allows a balancing and a judgment, or a moderation between the two.

The SACE review, which I understand has been supported by the government, says that that is unfair. This is where the flavouring of Professor Reid comes through when one reads the document, which says that it is unfair to unfairly give weight to the importance of public examinations. His recommendation (or their recommendation, to be fair) was that you should not bring those two together and moderate them in any way; they should be kept apart and aggregated. Given her previous advice, can the minister confirm that that particular decision will also be a decision for the future SSABSA and not a decision for this minister and this government?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The honourable member is surprised at the lack of opposition, but in reality there is no opposition there because we have consulted widely with all stakeholders. Legislation has been developed in a consultative forum with all stakeholders and the education experts, and obviously the requirements for the Future SACE will be determined by the board as appropriate. As mentioned, we have consulted widely with teachers and educators and have been through the most rigorous processes.

The Catholic and independent sectors are on the steering committee. The minister has authority to fund research and development work, which will then be provided to the new board for consideration and adoption. It would be unlikely for an expert board to go against the work developed by the education community under the auspices of the steering committee, which includes government and the non-government sector. We are debating the future of the board; this is not about the SACE sector.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As the minister in her reply and the Minister for Education in another place said, these changes underpin the Future SACE and certainly the ministerial control being sought gives power in relation to some elements of curriculum issues and potentially in other areas as well, which we will explore in later clauses. The two issues are inextricably bound together. I believe the minister stated that she felt it unlikely that a future SSABSA would disagree, and that is probably right, but nevertheless it is charged with the independent responsibility to make decisions and, theory, is not there, as the minister conceded, to represent the views of its sectors or ministers.

The minister has not addressed the specific question I put, namely: in relation to the example of moderating school assessments through the use of public exams, is that a decision of the future SSABSA? Will the minister confirm that the future SSABSA, and not the minister, has to take that decision?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: That is correct: it is a decision of the future SSABSA. Under the bill it can commission development work. It is not intended that the board itself will undertake development work but will commission any future development work. The Future SACE process mirrors what will happen under the new legislation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister publicly indicated that the government disagreed with a small number of the recommendations in regard to Future SACE. One of the recommendations was in relation to the certification that was to be provided, that is, whether or not the tertiary ranking or score would be provided on the certificate that was sent by SSABSA to year 12 students. Can the minister outline what is the government's position on this issue?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that that is for the board to determine.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let me clarify this: the recommendation originally was that the TER was not to be put on the certificate. The minister has indicated that she disagrees with that, and what she is confirming is that, essentially, that is still up in the air. It may or may not be on the certificate, because that is a decision for the future SSABSA.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: That is my advice and understanding.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Similarly, the minister indicated a disagreement to a recommendation about the role of SATAC, another body that is potentially involved in certification issues. Can the minister outline what is the government's policy position on this and, again, is this an issue the future SSABSA has ultimately to determine, or is it a decision the government and the minister take?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I will have to take that question on notice.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 14:17]

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT