EDUCATION Minister Jane Lomax-Smith has been attacked by members of her own party over school funding cuts.
In an embarrassing event for Dr Lomax-Smith, her own party sub-branch passed a motion calling for the Government to "reverse the financial impositions to already struggling public schools".
One senior Labor source raised concerns, believing she should have been able to "sell" the policy to her closest party members.
"It is unprecedented but I don't find it surprising that Jane couldn't even convince her own sub-branch . . ." one long-term delegate said.
The motion criticised the Government's decision to cut small school programs, prevent schools from keeping interest payments on unspent funds, and for shifting the responsibility for WorkCover.
In June, the Government reneged on a decision to impose a 1 per cent levy on schools to help pay for a workers' compensation scheme following public pressure.
Public schools, however, still face cuts of $36 million over the next four years to meet efficiency dividends.
Labor sources said Dr Lomax-Smith attended the State Council meeting last Thursday, but left before the motion was debated.
It is understood Attorney-General Michael Atkinson had to defend the Government before the motion was defeated.
"She left it up to another senior minister to do her dirty work," a Labor source said.
In an emailed statement Dr Lomax-Smith yesterday said: "Plans for our reinvestment strategy . . . have been successfully resolved with the union and principal groups, with the union saying it's 'delighted' with the outcome".
Friday, 17 August 2007
Blah Blah Blah a Deer ..... More Happy News from the Department of Education and Music Services Politpburo
Note: This policy was developed without any input from Angry Parents and without respect to sensible public policy.
Press Release: Stop Press Stop Music Stop Everything
News: Trials before major changes to music service in schools
Hon JANE LOMAX-SMITH MP
Minister for Education & Children's Services
Minister for Tourism
Minister for the City of Adelaide
Contact details
August 14, 2007
Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith has requested that the Education Department sit down with music groups to find common ground on measures to improve music education for South Australian school children.
Dr Lomax-Smith confirmed the department would not implement major changes to the delivery of South Australia’s $7.5 million instrumental music education program before trials of the proposed measures are completed next year.
The Minister welcomed a reported call in today’s Advertiser by the Music Council of Australia that changes should be trialled before modifying the existing instrumental music program. The government announced in June that proposed changes would first be trialled.
“A collaborative approach to working with music teachers and schools to trial these new approaches is exactly what we want to see happen,” Dr Lomax-Smith says.
The Minister today announced funding would be made available to support schools which volunteered to test elements of the proposed new measures.
The funds will mean:
*
Up to 20 primary and secondary schools to trial new approaches in Year 5 whole class instrumental teaching and group tuition of Year 6 to 10 students
*
Research into creating better opportunities to involve children in Reception to Year 4 in music education
*
Maintenance of the existing instrumental music program while the trials are carried out, with any new measures being gradually introduced over five year
*
An advisory group of music educators and departmental experts overseeing the trials and working with music education groups on improving the overall program
“Ensuring skilled young people achieve excellence in music, while more children also have the opportunity to discover music, is clearly what communities want.
“The instrumental music program has served many children well over 30 years, but clearly we can do better.
“Indeed, the proposals are in line with a National Review of School Music which showed that ‘music education in Australian schools is at a critical point where prompt action is needed to right the inequalities in school music’.
“I have asked the department to involve music education groups in a collaborative approach to working out how best we can achieve the shared aims of equity and excellence.”
Revamping the music education program was proposed by an independent review, to open the door to thousands more children learning instrumental music, while also enabling skilled students to excel through specialist music support at the State’s four Special Music Schools.
“As a government, we want to ensure there is a fairer access to music education for young people in our schools.
“At the same time, if more young people have access to instrumental music, it broadens the pool of talented young people who may choose to go on to excel in a particular field of music.
“However, there are clearly differing views, with some teachers opposed to any changes that may be proposed in this and the national agenda.
“We want schools to try out the new approaches. By working together, a common sense way forward can be found that ensures the program continues to foster excellence in instrumental music, while also ensuring greater equity of access for children.”
Press Release: Stop Press Stop Music Stop Everything
News: Trials before major changes to music service in schools
Hon JANE LOMAX-SMITH MP
Minister for Education & Children's Services
Minister for Tourism
Minister for the City of Adelaide
Contact details
August 14, 2007
Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith has requested that the Education Department sit down with music groups to find common ground on measures to improve music education for South Australian school children.
Dr Lomax-Smith confirmed the department would not implement major changes to the delivery of South Australia’s $7.5 million instrumental music education program before trials of the proposed measures are completed next year.
The Minister welcomed a reported call in today’s Advertiser by the Music Council of Australia that changes should be trialled before modifying the existing instrumental music program. The government announced in June that proposed changes would first be trialled.
“A collaborative approach to working with music teachers and schools to trial these new approaches is exactly what we want to see happen,” Dr Lomax-Smith says.
The Minister today announced funding would be made available to support schools which volunteered to test elements of the proposed new measures.
The funds will mean:
*
Up to 20 primary and secondary schools to trial new approaches in Year 5 whole class instrumental teaching and group tuition of Year 6 to 10 students
*
Research into creating better opportunities to involve children in Reception to Year 4 in music education
*
Maintenance of the existing instrumental music program while the trials are carried out, with any new measures being gradually introduced over five year
*
An advisory group of music educators and departmental experts overseeing the trials and working with music education groups on improving the overall program
“Ensuring skilled young people achieve excellence in music, while more children also have the opportunity to discover music, is clearly what communities want.
“The instrumental music program has served many children well over 30 years, but clearly we can do better.
“Indeed, the proposals are in line with a National Review of School Music which showed that ‘music education in Australian schools is at a critical point where prompt action is needed to right the inequalities in school music’.
“I have asked the department to involve music education groups in a collaborative approach to working out how best we can achieve the shared aims of equity and excellence.”
Revamping the music education program was proposed by an independent review, to open the door to thousands more children learning instrumental music, while also enabling skilled students to excel through specialist music support at the State’s four Special Music Schools.
“As a government, we want to ensure there is a fairer access to music education for young people in our schools.
“At the same time, if more young people have access to instrumental music, it broadens the pool of talented young people who may choose to go on to excel in a particular field of music.
“However, there are clearly differing views, with some teachers opposed to any changes that may be proposed in this and the national agenda.
“We want schools to try out the new approaches. By working together, a common sense way forward can be found that ensures the program continues to foster excellence in instrumental music, while also ensuring greater equity of access for children.”
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
More Sneaky Education Cuts
From Adelaide Now
Parents will have to pay thousands of dollars extra a year for private music lessons, under Education Department changes.
No individual instrumental music lessons will be offered at state high schools once the overhaul is complete, effectively privatising the system, Australian Education Union state branch president Andrew Gohl says. "My concern is parents are going to be forced under this model to pay for private provision," he said.
The Education Department announced in June that its music and aquatics programs - both subject to a review - would continue, but instrumental music would have a new focus on primary school students.
Teachers will be shifted out of high schools over the next five years.
Music teachers say successful completion of Year 11 and 12 music subjects is not possible without individual tuition.
About 9000 students are using the Education Department's instrumental music service this year, with the changes expected to eventually expand that number to 28,000, all at Year 5 level. "A number of kids won't be able to afford private tuition and won't be able to do secondary music any more," said one high school arts co-ordinator.
Mr Gohl said the new model was borrowed from the United Kingdom, where "significant additional funding" was put into music. "That's not happening in SA - it's on a budget-neutral basis," he said.
Parent Gay Lee said she would not be able to afford tuition for her four children - John, 16, Simon, 12, Bethany, 10, and Sarah, 7.
"It's usually about $25 per half-hour lesson and at 10 weeks per term, you are looking at $1000 a year per child," Mrs Lee said. An Education Department spokeswoman said students already learning an instrument at high school could continue. Specialist music schools at Woodville, Brighton, Marryatville and Fremont-Elizabeth will still accept students by audition. Up to 70 scholarships will be available for country students to continue lessons at high school.
Readin' 'ritin' and 'rithmetic focus to keep schools 'float
Backdoor justification for State Labors Cuts
The reality is that this will be about all the schools will be able to cover with their reduced budgets from Cutmeiseter in Chief Kevin The Chop Foley.
English, maths, science and history would be defined as the cornerstones of primary education under a schools charter drawn up by principals.
The Australian Primary Principals Association has put forward the charter that would outline primary schools' precise role, amid concern their curriculum has become too cluttered.
The association covers public and private schools across the country.
The charter was developed at a forum in Sydney last month.
The association's president Leonie Trimper said principals felt it was essential to simplify the curriculum by making English, maths, science and history "critical and essential elements" to be taught by primary schools.
Teaching these key subjects would allow children to best develop skills including learning, thinking, communication, self-management and use of technology.
However, these needed to be balanced so children also had the opportunity to take part in music, physical education and other activities.
"These experiences, while not seen as core areas, were viewed by the forum's delegates as having great value in introducing children to many other important areas of life," Ms Trimper said.
"The draft charter suggests programs and interventions, such as bike safety and financial literacy, should only be taught if they don't detract from a school's core business.
"If we are to give our children a proper education foundation in life, the accent must be on core areas that are vital to learning."
The charter defines the purpose of primary school as "ensuring that all children learn, and that they gain a permanent love of learning".
The document will be circulated to schools and parents for comment before being submitted to federal and state governments.
The reality is that this will be about all the schools will be able to cover with their reduced budgets from Cutmeiseter in Chief Kevin The Chop Foley.
Friday, 13 July 2007
Liberal Statement on WorkCover
Rann School tax undermines public education
Another first for South Australia and the Rann Government – a school tax!
The Rann Government is proposing to tax all public childcare centres, kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools to recover part of the government’s workers compensation costs. This tax will ‘save’ the Rann government, and cost our schools around $17 million over 4 years.
The Rann School Tax will be levied at 1 percent of total salaries at each site.
Schools say this tax, combined with other Rann Government cuts to education, will cost annually over $100,000 for secondary schools, around $50,000 for primary schools and $4000 for kindergartens.
Secondary schools with discretionary budgets of $400,000 are getting cuts of over $100,000 per year - some, over $200,000 per year.
Primary schools with discretionary budgets of $70,000 suffer cuts of around $50,000 per year.
How are schools meant to cope with such cuts?
One option is to charge higher school fees. To recover the amount of the cuts in fees, families are looking at $100 per student more each year. Higher fees do nothing for many families who can’t afford the fees at the current level.
If fees are not increased schools say it means less equipment replaced, less books replaced, cuts to curriculum, no new computers, less professional development for teachers and more parent fundraising.
But under Minister ‘School Tax’ Smith, parent fundraising is under attack. The Rann Government is now considering taking back interest earned by schools on bank accounts. In many cases this is money raised by parents through their own fundraising efforts to fund improvements for their local school and now the government is raiding schools’ bank accounts to top up its own funds.
At the same time that the Rann Government is looting schools’ bank accounts, it is asking parents and schools to pay out even more money to cover costs usually borne by the government.
Aren’t parents lucky? They can now fundraise to help pay a tax on schools.
By taxing schools it will discourage parents from fundraising which will have two effects. It means less fundraising will be done and schools’ facilities will suffer as a result. It also means that school spirit will suffer because there may be less involvement from parents in the school community. Both are bad news for the quality of education delivered in South Australia.
The Rann School Tax comes on top of:
• Cancelling of the Be Active – Let’s Go program
• Proposed cuts to music and aquatic programs
• Cuts to the $30,000 Small Schools Grants
• First Aid training is now a school cost
It gets worse – schools may now have to pay for the first four weeks for staff who replace injured staff. The extra cost - $6500 per injured worker. Schools that budget for two injuries a year will have to find another $13,000 out of school funds (parent’s funds). Some schools are budgeting $10,000 extra per term – another $40,000 extra cost annually on top of the tax.
The Rann Government can try and convince the public that it is committed to public education but its priorities are anything but funding the system properly. The Rann Government has spent $20 million on establishing a foreign university here in Adelaide and around $24 million on extra spin doctors and staffers. At the same time it’s asking parents to put their hands into their pockets and pay even more for basic education at our schools.
This direct attack on schools through the introduction of a tax and other cost cutting measures undermines public education in South Australia.
Schools are being asked to do more with less and yet deliver a quality education system.
I urge parents to contact their schools – ask about the impact of the tax and cuts on their school and their budget.
Welcome to Labor’s Education Revolution.
Another first for South Australia and the Rann Government – a school tax!
The Rann Government is proposing to tax all public childcare centres, kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools to recover part of the government’s workers compensation costs. This tax will ‘save’ the Rann government, and cost our schools around $17 million over 4 years.
The Rann School Tax will be levied at 1 percent of total salaries at each site.
Schools say this tax, combined with other Rann Government cuts to education, will cost annually over $100,000 for secondary schools, around $50,000 for primary schools and $4000 for kindergartens.
Secondary schools with discretionary budgets of $400,000 are getting cuts of over $100,000 per year - some, over $200,000 per year.
Primary schools with discretionary budgets of $70,000 suffer cuts of around $50,000 per year.
How are schools meant to cope with such cuts?
One option is to charge higher school fees. To recover the amount of the cuts in fees, families are looking at $100 per student more each year. Higher fees do nothing for many families who can’t afford the fees at the current level.
If fees are not increased schools say it means less equipment replaced, less books replaced, cuts to curriculum, no new computers, less professional development for teachers and more parent fundraising.
But under Minister ‘School Tax’ Smith, parent fundraising is under attack. The Rann Government is now considering taking back interest earned by schools on bank accounts. In many cases this is money raised by parents through their own fundraising efforts to fund improvements for their local school and now the government is raiding schools’ bank accounts to top up its own funds.
At the same time that the Rann Government is looting schools’ bank accounts, it is asking parents and schools to pay out even more money to cover costs usually borne by the government.
Aren’t parents lucky? They can now fundraise to help pay a tax on schools.
By taxing schools it will discourage parents from fundraising which will have two effects. It means less fundraising will be done and schools’ facilities will suffer as a result. It also means that school spirit will suffer because there may be less involvement from parents in the school community. Both are bad news for the quality of education delivered in South Australia.
The Rann School Tax comes on top of:
• Cancelling of the Be Active – Let’s Go program
• Proposed cuts to music and aquatic programs
• Cuts to the $30,000 Small Schools Grants
• First Aid training is now a school cost
It gets worse – schools may now have to pay for the first four weeks for staff who replace injured staff. The extra cost - $6500 per injured worker. Schools that budget for two injuries a year will have to find another $13,000 out of school funds (parent’s funds). Some schools are budgeting $10,000 extra per term – another $40,000 extra cost annually on top of the tax.
The Rann Government can try and convince the public that it is committed to public education but its priorities are anything but funding the system properly. The Rann Government has spent $20 million on establishing a foreign university here in Adelaide and around $24 million on extra spin doctors and staffers. At the same time it’s asking parents to put their hands into their pockets and pay even more for basic education at our schools.
This direct attack on schools through the introduction of a tax and other cost cutting measures undermines public education in South Australia.
Schools are being asked to do more with less and yet deliver a quality education system.
I urge parents to contact their schools – ask about the impact of the tax and cuts on their school and their budget.
Welcome to Labor’s Education Revolution.
Earlier Liberal Position on WorkCover
Liberals will drop Rann’s School Tax
A Liberal Government will drop the outrageous Rann School Tax, Shadow Minister for Education and Children Services, Iain Evans said today. The policy will be reversed.
“The Rann School Tax will hurt schools, hurt teachers, hurt parents and hurt students,” Mr Evans said.
“The tax is designed to save the Government around $17 million over four years, by taxing schools a one per cent Work Cover levy on salaries. This is effectively a cut to school funding.
“Secondary Schools face cuts of around $100 000 per year. Some face cuts of up to $200 000 per year. Primary Schools face cuts of around $50 000 per year.
“As a result of this tax and other cost changes to schools, parents face increased school fees of around $100 per year, per child – a huge cost on families.
“A Liberal Government will remove this unfair tax that targets the classroom and will cause families much hardship.
“Minister ‘School Tax’ Smith has targeted the classroom in trying to claw back around $17 million over four years.
“A Liberal Government will remove Labor’s attack on the classroom.
“The fact that Minister ‘School Tax’ Smith conjured up, promoted and supports this tax on schools, shows how out of touch she is with schools.
“A Liberal Government will drop the tax.”
A Liberal Government will drop the outrageous Rann School Tax, Shadow Minister for Education and Children Services, Iain Evans said today. The policy will be reversed.
“The Rann School Tax will hurt schools, hurt teachers, hurt parents and hurt students,” Mr Evans said.
“The tax is designed to save the Government around $17 million over four years, by taxing schools a one per cent Work Cover levy on salaries. This is effectively a cut to school funding.
“Secondary Schools face cuts of around $100 000 per year. Some face cuts of up to $200 000 per year. Primary Schools face cuts of around $50 000 per year.
“As a result of this tax and other cost changes to schools, parents face increased school fees of around $100 per year, per child – a huge cost on families.
“A Liberal Government will remove this unfair tax that targets the classroom and will cause families much hardship.
“Minister ‘School Tax’ Smith has targeted the classroom in trying to claw back around $17 million over four years.
“A Liberal Government will remove Labor’s attack on the classroom.
“The fact that Minister ‘School Tax’ Smith conjured up, promoted and supports this tax on schools, shows how out of touch she is with schools.
“A Liberal Government will drop the tax.”
Parliamentary Avoidance
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Thursday 21 June 2007
The SPEAKER (Hon. J.J. Snelling) took the chair at 10.30 a.m. and read prayers.
SCHOOLS, WORKCOVER LEVY
The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport): My question is to the Minister for Education and Children's Services. Why is the government considering a workers compensation levy on all public schools and preschools of up to 1 per cent on salaries; and how does the minister expect schools and preschools to cope with this and other new costs on schools being considered? The principal of Hamilton Secondary College, Doug Moyle, has written to his governing council as follows:
Please find attached a partial copy of an email sent to all Hamilton staff on Wednesday 30/5/07. It outlines the estimated reduced funding the Hamilton Secondary College will receive in 2008. It amounts to some $228 000—much worse than I initially reported at the last council meeting. . . The only discretionary funding that schools receive from the government is the `School Support Grant'—all other funds are tied (legally) to other purposes. Our support grant for 2007 is around $170 000. The cuts would wipe this out. . . We simply cannot run the college without this School Support Grant and it means that we will have to make cuts to staffing. This will increase class sizes, reduce individual attention to students and ultimately impact negatively on learning outcomes. For us $220 000 is around three teachers or 33 semester courses we would have to shed.
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH (Minister for Educa¬tion and Children's Services): The honourable member is referring to measures that were in place in last year's budget. I remind him that up until last year's budget we had invested 38 per cent more in funding per capita, on average, for every child in our state. This year we have increased $127 million into our school system above that of last year.
We have the biggest reform agenda ever—
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: —whereby funding in our system has increased by $3 600, on average, per child since we came into government. The thing that those opposite cannot stand is that we have a massive reform agenda, which includes across portfolio activity: every chance for every child, an agenda for early childhood, an agenda for early intervention and a whole range of preschool activities, in terms of children's centres. We have reduced class sizes; we have invested in education; we have a new SACE system; we are building trade schools; and we have a strategy of school to work reforms, which are the pride of our nation, in terms of a reform agenda.
As part of that reform agenda, I make no apology for the fact that we are redirecting some funds within our schools. However, at the end of the day, more money, more dollars, smaller class sizes and more teachers are going into educa¬tion. To pretend, as the member for Davenport does, that any adjustments in school funding will affect staffing is clearly wrong. Quite simply put, that is because our staffing formula is set within our EB arrangements. The number of teachers per class is set within that agreement and, in reality, one of our agendas has been to reduce class sizes and employ more teachers and counsellors to provide more support throughout our schools. So, to pretend that there will be a reduction in teachers is just plain wrong.
The member for Davenport is suggesting that he should discuss last year's budget (and he is very welcome to do so, because he was not the opposition spokesperson at the time that was released), but the reality is that those matters are under consultation, and the suggestion with respect to funding levels is purely speculation. It was in a press release in September—breaking news. But he did not notice it. How could that be? In September 2006, it was in a press release. The reality is that the savings targets put in that budget are being redirected into education. At the end of the day, more money and more funding will go into education. Those redirections, of course, include other issues, such as water funding. Schools use a lot of water, and we have already reduced usage in 300 schools to our targets. So, less money is being spent, and those savings are being redirected into schools.
SCHOOL FEES
The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport): Does the Minister for Education and Children's Services support schools increasing school fees to offset the proposed extra WorkCover and industrial relations costs on schools? The Craigburn Primary School in my electorate has written to its school community, and the letter states:
The Government has instructed the Department of Education and Children's Services (DECS) to make a cut to their overall budget. At Craigburn the total cost of these `savings' to be taken from our revenue will be $50 000 $60 000. In order to fund the estimated cuts of $50 $60K to our funding for next year Craigburn will either have to fund this money from our discretionary budget or raise the Materials and Services Charge for every student by $100.
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH (Minister for Educa¬tion and Children's Services): The member for Davenport has got all of his wires crossed and quite tangled. The materials and services charges are not raised in order to pay salaries or to pay for staffing fees. It is quite clear that there is some confusion. Whilst there are—
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order! Whatever members might think of the minister's answer, she is not debating; she is offering information. Interjections are designed purely to disrupt the house. We have a few minutes to go. I ask members to contain themselves so we can get through the next few minutes without my having to name someone.
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: As I said before, more money is going into education—$127 million more than last year. There has been a massive reform agenda with more money every year, and this year is no different. It is quite true that there are some savings tasks that relate to water usage and electricity usage, as well as changes in the way that workers compensation is administered. Many of those targets have already been met. The reality is that, whilst one might say there is clearly going to be a 25 per cent cut in funding for water usage because schools are very high users, it is in fact quite reasonable that schools, as well as all other government departments, should aim to achieve the savings in water usage that is part of our State Strategic Plan. Those targets are being met. As the targets for water usage are being met, the savings are well met, and therefore there is no effective cut in funding to schools.
The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have a supplementary question. Can the materials and services charge in schools be increased to offset costs to curriculum budget because money has been taken out of curriculum budgets to fund the extra cost placed on schools like the WorkCover levy proposed by government?
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: The education budget covers the cost of employing staff and their materials, and that is not part of the allowable charges through the fees and materials charge.
Thursday 21 June 2007
The SPEAKER (Hon. J.J. Snelling) took the chair at 10.30 a.m. and read prayers.
SCHOOLS, WORKCOVER LEVY
The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport): My question is to the Minister for Education and Children's Services. Why is the government considering a workers compensation levy on all public schools and preschools of up to 1 per cent on salaries; and how does the minister expect schools and preschools to cope with this and other new costs on schools being considered? The principal of Hamilton Secondary College, Doug Moyle, has written to his governing council as follows:
Please find attached a partial copy of an email sent to all Hamilton staff on Wednesday 30/5/07. It outlines the estimated reduced funding the Hamilton Secondary College will receive in 2008. It amounts to some $228 000—much worse than I initially reported at the last council meeting. . . The only discretionary funding that schools receive from the government is the `School Support Grant'—all other funds are tied (legally) to other purposes. Our support grant for 2007 is around $170 000. The cuts would wipe this out. . . We simply cannot run the college without this School Support Grant and it means that we will have to make cuts to staffing. This will increase class sizes, reduce individual attention to students and ultimately impact negatively on learning outcomes. For us $220 000 is around three teachers or 33 semester courses we would have to shed.
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH (Minister for Educa¬tion and Children's Services): The honourable member is referring to measures that were in place in last year's budget. I remind him that up until last year's budget we had invested 38 per cent more in funding per capita, on average, for every child in our state. This year we have increased $127 million into our school system above that of last year.
We have the biggest reform agenda ever—
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: —whereby funding in our system has increased by $3 600, on average, per child since we came into government. The thing that those opposite cannot stand is that we have a massive reform agenda, which includes across portfolio activity: every chance for every child, an agenda for early childhood, an agenda for early intervention and a whole range of preschool activities, in terms of children's centres. We have reduced class sizes; we have invested in education; we have a new SACE system; we are building trade schools; and we have a strategy of school to work reforms, which are the pride of our nation, in terms of a reform agenda.
As part of that reform agenda, I make no apology for the fact that we are redirecting some funds within our schools. However, at the end of the day, more money, more dollars, smaller class sizes and more teachers are going into educa¬tion. To pretend, as the member for Davenport does, that any adjustments in school funding will affect staffing is clearly wrong. Quite simply put, that is because our staffing formula is set within our EB arrangements. The number of teachers per class is set within that agreement and, in reality, one of our agendas has been to reduce class sizes and employ more teachers and counsellors to provide more support throughout our schools. So, to pretend that there will be a reduction in teachers is just plain wrong.
The member for Davenport is suggesting that he should discuss last year's budget (and he is very welcome to do so, because he was not the opposition spokesperson at the time that was released), but the reality is that those matters are under consultation, and the suggestion with respect to funding levels is purely speculation. It was in a press release in September—breaking news. But he did not notice it. How could that be? In September 2006, it was in a press release. The reality is that the savings targets put in that budget are being redirected into education. At the end of the day, more money and more funding will go into education. Those redirections, of course, include other issues, such as water funding. Schools use a lot of water, and we have already reduced usage in 300 schools to our targets. So, less money is being spent, and those savings are being redirected into schools.
SCHOOL FEES
The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport): Does the Minister for Education and Children's Services support schools increasing school fees to offset the proposed extra WorkCover and industrial relations costs on schools? The Craigburn Primary School in my electorate has written to its school community, and the letter states:
The Government has instructed the Department of Education and Children's Services (DECS) to make a cut to their overall budget. At Craigburn the total cost of these `savings' to be taken from our revenue will be $50 000 $60 000. In order to fund the estimated cuts of $50 $60K to our funding for next year Craigburn will either have to fund this money from our discretionary budget or raise the Materials and Services Charge for every student by $100.
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH (Minister for Educa¬tion and Children's Services): The member for Davenport has got all of his wires crossed and quite tangled. The materials and services charges are not raised in order to pay salaries or to pay for staffing fees. It is quite clear that there is some confusion. Whilst there are—
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order! Whatever members might think of the minister's answer, she is not debating; she is offering information. Interjections are designed purely to disrupt the house. We have a few minutes to go. I ask members to contain themselves so we can get through the next few minutes without my having to name someone.
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: As I said before, more money is going into education—$127 million more than last year. There has been a massive reform agenda with more money every year, and this year is no different. It is quite true that there are some savings tasks that relate to water usage and electricity usage, as well as changes in the way that workers compensation is administered. Many of those targets have already been met. The reality is that, whilst one might say there is clearly going to be a 25 per cent cut in funding for water usage because schools are very high users, it is in fact quite reasonable that schools, as well as all other government departments, should aim to achieve the savings in water usage that is part of our State Strategic Plan. Those targets are being met. As the targets for water usage are being met, the savings are well met, and therefore there is no effective cut in funding to schools.
The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have a supplementary question. Can the materials and services charge in schools be increased to offset costs to curriculum budget because money has been taken out of curriculum budgets to fund the extra cost placed on schools like the WorkCover levy proposed by government?
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: The education budget covers the cost of employing staff and their materials, and that is not part of the allowable charges through the fees and materials charge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
