Minority Report –
Australian Greens
Introduction
The Australian Greens believe that the best educational and
social outcomes for Australian children and their families will be achieved if
they are enrolled and regularly attending school and actively participating in
an education that is relevant to their lives, their culture and their
aspirations. However, we do not believe that the measures contained within this
Bill represent a genuine attempt to deliver that outcome.
We note that nearly all of the submissions (29 out of 31)
and the vast majority of witnesses to the inquiry were critical of the
rationale for and likely success of the approach taken by the Bill, and many
pointed to the failure of overseas trials of punitive measures, or the success
of other initiatives based on a social inclusion framework to improving
educational engagement and outcomes.
Inconsistency with Government policy commitments
The Australian Greens welcomed the ALP election promise of
an "education revolution" as we saw that there was a real need to
address the manner in which our education system was failing to engage with
some of our children – particularly those from disadvantaged and 'socially
excluded' backgrounds. We believe that more needs to be done to address the
educational needs of Indigenous students, other children from migrant and
refugee backgrounds for whom English is often also a second or third language,
and those children growing up in households experiencing complex and
multi-factorial disadvantage[1].
However we do not believe that this approach is or could ever be part of a
genuine 'education revolution' and we are concerned that it will actively
undermine efforts at progressive educational reform – by unfairly targeting one
group of disadvantaged students (whom the system is particularly failing) and
making them directly responsible for the ill-fortune of their families rather
than addressing the educational barriers they face.
We note that, in discussing the government's commitment to a
Social Inclusion agenda, the Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and
the Voluntary Sector, Senator Ursula Stephens said:
"This is what the social inclusion agenda is all about.
It's a very ambitious agenda in which every one of us has a part to play. We
have to identify the systems, attitudes, programs and processes that prevent
everyone from having a fair go in our society. We have to understand why people
aren't able to engage in work and education, or make connections with family,
friends and their local community."[2]
Senator Stephens has also said, on another occasion, that:
"We are all challenged to think very differently in
this agenda – because it is about seeking out the causes of social exclusion
rather than only dealing with the fallout of that exclusion."[3]
The Australian Greens do no believe that this proposed
legislation reflects a commitment to a Social Inclusion agenda or reflects a
genuine effort to engage with the causes of social exclusion rather than the
symptoms. There is no evidence of a concerted effort by the Government to
understand and engage with the reasons why children are not engaging with the
educational system or address the systemic barriers that prevent them getting a
'fair go'.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the primary purpose
of the Bill is "... to engender behavioural change in parents who are
receiving income support with the aim being to improve the school enrolment and
attendance of their children."[4]
The entire approach taken by the Bill is built upon the premise that parental
encouragement and a lack of parental responsibility among parents on income
support is the key factor and primary cause of poor attendance ... and that a
punitive sanctions-based approach is the most efficient and effective way to
improve school attendance. The Australian Greens believe that this approach and
these assumptions are fatally flawed, and that the scheme is not only unlikely
to lead to better school attendance and improved educational outcomes, but is
likely to lead to increased family stress and social exclusion for those
affected.
The logic and assumptions underlying this policy approach
are not based on the wealth of international and domestic research concerning
school attendance, improved educational outcomes and social inclusion. They do
not reflect best-practice models or the findings of successful programs. We
cannot see how this reflects the commitment of the Rudd Labor Government to an "education
revolution" or social inclusion.
The Australian Greens also note that, while there has been a
lot said by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for Social
Inclusion the importance of a Compact with the Third Sector as a framework to
increase consultation and collaboration with the sector, community service
organisations complained that there had been no consultation with them about
these measures, their capacity to support likely increases in demand for
service, and no provision of extra resources in affected areas.[5]
School attendance versus educational outcomes
The reasons for poor school attendance and engagement and
for poor education outcomes are complex and multifaceted, and those relating to
Aboriginal students doubly so[6].
A simplistic approach that reduces the problem to an issue of a lack of
parental responsibility and misrepresents the problem as restricted
predominantly to low income families is unlikely to produce any long-term
improvement in educational outcomes for marginalised kids. Unless the approach
taken to school truancy addresses the complex barriers to educational
engagement and tackles the underlying causes of non-attendance it will not
deliver results. As the budgetary allocations for the implementation of this
one year trial in eight communities indicate,[7]
the proposed approach is complex and expensive to implement, while at the same
time failing to address the underlying causes of truancy and delivering very
little in the way of support services.
The government was unable to provide any evidence to back up
the assertion that low rates of school enrolment and attendance were
predominantly restricted to low income families on income support[8]. The submission from the
Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) notes that national school
enrolment and attendance data is not disaggregated by income source or
socio-economic status, leading them to conclude that:
"...there is no evidence
indicating that children in families who receive income support are more likely
to have poor school attendance records than children in families who are not in
receipt of income support payments. Indeed, US research has suggested that geographic location is a
stronger predictor of non-attendance than welfare status."[9]
As the Western Australian Council of Social Services warned
in its submission, this means that this initiative "...will be ineffective
in dealing with truancy in 75% of families around Australia that are not
reliant on welfare payments."[10]
Such an approach creates a two class system within our schools which treats the
children of those on income support differently, increasing the level of stigma
and exacerbating factors that contribute to social exclusion. The fact that the
measure targets children and families purely on the basis of income source
without any evidence-base to justify this approach led ACOSS to conclude that...
"the targeting of this measure to income support recipients lacks policy
logic and is discriminatory." [11]
Underlying causes of poor attendance and educational outcomes
Best practice programs in education focus on increasing
student engagement by making educational materials and programs more relevant
and accessible, and by engaging families and communities in the cultural life
of the school.[12]
While students can be compelled to attend they cannot be compelled to learn,
and learning outcomes are best when they are the result of self-motivated and
goal-orientated engagement. These issues of relevance and engagement are
particularly important for Aboriginal children and children of migrant
families, especially where English is a second or third language. The role of
good teachers and the school culture in delivering educational outcomes for
Aboriginal children is absolutely crucial.[13]
The problems with attendance, engagement and educational
outcomes for Indigenous Australians is well documented and there is a
substantial body of inquiries, reviews and reports into the nature of the
problem and the relative success and failure of various approaches and
interventions. [14]
In relation to remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern
Territory, we note that the recent comments and findings of the report of the
NTER Review Board, who stated that...
"the
failure of governments and Aboriginal communities to provide a functioning education
system necessary for children's physical, intellectual and emotional
development is of paramount concern for the future of Aboriginal
communities"[15]
The NTER Review report went on to say that:
"The
Board has had the benefit of advice from a principal of one of the largest
schools who believes the appalling education outcomes can be turned around
through a holistic approach, including good education infrastructure,
recruiting good teachers, early childhood development and empowering teacher
and community relationships.
This
view is consistent with the thrust of the Board’s strategic thinking that an
integrated service delivery approach within a community development framework
must be central to the future development of these communities."[16]
The NTER Review report also comments[17] on the failure of the Northern
Territory and Commonwealth Governments to heed and implement the
recommendations of a far reaching review of NT Aboriginal education in 1999.[18] This report, Learning
Lessons – an independent review of Indigenous education in the Northern
Territory, clearly identifies that the major factors in poor attendance
and poor educational outcomes are predominantly due to systemic failures on the
part of the schools and the education department. It established that there was
"a widespread desire amongst Indigenous people for improvements in the
education of their children" and "substantial evidence of long-term
systemic failure to address..." "... unequivocal evidence of
deteriorating outcomes from an already unacceptably low base."[19]
This report in 1999 described poor attendance rates as
"an educational crisis" and recommended major changes to the Northern
Territory education system and a significant commitment of resources to
address underlying issues in health and housing as well as to provide more
teachers, classrooms and educational resources. It also pointed to the need to
collaborate and engage with Aboriginal families and communities, emphasising
that there was "a need to establish partnerships between Indigenous
parents, communities, and peak bodies, the service providers and both the NT
and Commonwealth Governments, to honestly acknowledge the gravity and causes of
declining outcomes, its destructiveness to future Indigenous aspirations, and
to assume the joint responsibility of immediately reversing the downward
trend."[20]
The Australian Greens note that there was significant
evidence presented to the committee of the underlying causes of poor school
attendance.[21]
A number of witnesses referred to the findings of the Western Australian
Aboriginal Child Health Survey and the work of Dr Fiona Stanley in particular,[22] which indicated that low
school attendance was most likely to result from student disengagement arising
from frustration and lowered self-esteem as a result of poor school
performance. It suggested that a lack of understanding and identification with
the values and expectations and the ethos of the school, and its failure to be
culturally relevant in ways that respect and validate the student's identity
and culture and life experience.[23]
It suggested the failure to provide educational experiences that were relevant
to the child's life circumstances was a much greater factor than parental
responsibility, and was highly dismissive of the stereotypes presented by the
media which sought to blame lazy and neglectful parents for the truancy of
their kids.[24]
The WAACHS
website summarises its findings, indicating that the factors found to be
associated with attendance at school by Aboriginal students included the
following:
- Students were
almost 30% less likely to have lower than median attendance if their
carers had been educated beyond Year 10 to Years 11 or 12.
- Students assessed
by their teachers to be at high risk of clinically significant emotional
or behavioural difficulties were almost twice as likely to have at least
26 days of absence from school
- Students in
families where 7 to 14 life stress events had occurred in the past 12
months were almost twice as likely to be absent for 26 days or more than
students from families where 2 or less life stress events had occurred
- Students were more
likely to miss 26 days or more of school if their main language spoken in
the playground was Aboriginal English or an Aboriginal language
- Students who had
trouble getting enough sleep were over one and a half times more likely to
be absent for at least 26 days
- Students who had
never attended daycare were one and a half times as likely to be absent
from school for 26 days or more during the school year
- Students whose primary
carer had needed to see the school principal about a problem the student
was having at school were almost twice as likely to be absent for 26 days
or more
- Students in schools
with a high proportion of Aboriginal students, schools that had Aboriginal
and Islander Education Officers (AIEOs), and Government schools in the
highest quartile of Socioeconomic Index for schools were more likely to
have poor school attendance.
From WAACHS website
http://www.ichr.uwa.edu.au/waachs/themes/education/attendance
One important finding of this research is a direct empirical
link between inter-generational trauma and poor school attendance, with
children whose primary carer had been forcibly removed from their families as a
result of the policies which produced the Stolen Generations much more likely
to be absent from school:
The
survey found that the proportion of students who had missed at least 26 days of
school was significantly higher among students whose primary carer was forcibly
separated from their natural family (69.0 per cent; CI: 59.6%–77.6%) than among
those whose primary carer had not been separated (52.2 per cent; CI:
48.8%–55.7%) (Table 4.25)." page 130.
Professor Larissa Behrendt and Ruth MaCausland also
summarised the results of a number of studies which provided evidence of poor
school attendance by Aboriginal children being associated with low
socio-economic status, low parental achievement, domestic violence, child abuse
and drug and alcohol abuse.[25]
The Western Australian Council of Social Services and the
Aboriginal Legal Service of WA also highlighted the links between poor health
and school attendance, with a number of submissions[26] drawing attention to the
results of the NACCHO Ear Trial and School Attendance Project[27] – which found that children
with chronic suppurative otitis media attended only 69% of the days within the
study, as compared to 88% of other children. The 1999 NT Learning Lessons
report also found that children with low attendance rates were more likely to
have hearing loss resulting from chronic ear disease.
Poor nutrition together with hunger associated with a lack
of breakfast and an inability to provide school lunches have been found to
impact on both school attendance and educational outcomes.[28] So too have inadequate
housing and homelessness and associated lack of sufficient sleep.[29] These are significant issues
which should be addressed by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments as a
priority.
Focusing on addressing these underlying causal factors and
building on successful programs is, in the opinion of the Australian Greens, a
more sensible evidence-based approach which is more likely to produce
worthwhile outcomes and deliver value for money. The NT Government currently
lacks the capacity to cater for all of its eligible students – there would
simply not be enough desks, classrooms or teachers to cope if all those
students who should be at school turned up. The Commonwealth Government has a
four year plan to address capacity and resource constraints within the NT
school system. While the Commonwealth Government committed $98.8 million in the
2008-09 Budget to provide an additional 200 teachers, the Australian Education
Union doubts sufficient experienced teachers to can be found. The NTER Review
report recommended that an additional $1.7 Billion was needed over five years
to close the education gap, including 1360 extra teachers, 585 additional staff
and $440 million spent on infrastructure.[30]
DEEWR have indicated in response to questions on notice that
a total of 45 new teachers have been employed to date, with 22 of these
currently deployed as of term 3 2008, and 23 undertaking intensive training for
deployment first term 2009.Four new classrooms are being built at Wadeye and
Catholic education has been given $10 million to build ten teacher houses
there.[31]
While the $17 million allocated to the administration of
these new measures is relatively small by comparison of the scale of unmet need
in Indigenous education in the Northern territory, the Australian Greens
consider this money would be better spent on addressing these core needs – by
building on successful programs and engaging Aboriginal families and
communities in community-initiated programs to increase school attendance once
the necessary teachers, classrooms and desks are locally available.
The Australian Greens are particularly concerned by the
likely impacts of the measures on humanitarian migrant communities in the
Cannington district on WA. We note that not only does the Cannington district
have a higher proportion of Aboriginal people by comparison to metropolitan Perth
as a whole[32]
but it is known for having a significant population of humanitarian refugees.
This group have only recently settled in the Australia, having English as a
second or third language, and come from a background in which they have had
intermittent access to education and experienced significant trauma as a result
of war. Community service providers we have spoken to are concerned that the
children of this group are particularly at risk of poor educational outcomes,
are manifesting higher rates of truancy, and already lack access to sufficient
support services. We are particularly concerned about the capacity of these
parents and carers to navigate and negotiate these provisions with Centrelink
bureaucracy, and urge that particular consideration be given to their
circumstances and additional support services provide to assist them.
Recommendation
1: The Australian Greens recommend that the Commonwealth Government prioritise
investment of resources to addressing the underlying causes of poor school
attendance and engagement.
Positive initiatives and evidence of successful
interventions
As the NTER Review Report stated:
"There
are universal success factors that improve education outcomes that don't appear
to be contested: focus on early childhood development, good quality teaching,
quality education infrastructure and teaching resources, quality bilingual
education, and associated sporting, cultural and development programs. All
these critically important ingredients that determine education achievement
globally are highly deficient in remote Northern Territory Aboriginal community
schools."[33]
The Learning Lessons report undertaken by the
Northern Territory Department of Education in 1999 (as mentioned previously)
also described a number of successive positive initiatives that were being
undertaken by schools on an individual ad hoc basis:
"Some
schools have attempted to address this problem by having physical education or
light play as the first activities of the day, with the idea of encouraging
children to get to school on time, and to ensure latecomers cause minimal
disruption and not miss crucial information.
Others
collect children by whatever transport the school has available—even the principal’s
own vehicle. Some schools offer breakfast programs, aiming to cure hunger and
offer an enticement to attend school at the same time. In many schools, both
punctuality and attendance are encouraged through various forms of incentive
including excursions, involvement in sport or other recreational events."[34]
It also provides a good example of a successful 'best practice'
attendance initiative:
"At
Alekerange, an excursion is provided for senior primary students at the end of
each semester. These can be ‘big ticket’ interstate trips or more often local
places of cultural interest to the students. The excursions are directly linked
to attendance and the records of attendance are prominently displayed in the
classroom. A one dollar ‘fine’ is imposed on the total excursion fee for every
day of unexplained absence of the student. The ‘fines’ are paid by the family
and no student misses out on the excursion. This initiative has the full
support of the community and has increased the attendance for the class to
around 90%."[35]
p.142
In providing these examples the Learning Lessons report notes
significantly that these individual school attendance initiatives appear to be
in "... total isolation from any departmental advice on strategies or
apparent interest in success or failure."[36]
We think that it is highly significant that the Northern Territory Government
has failed to act on this report and implement its recommendations. We do not
believe that under these circumstances it is worthwhile or appropriate to be
embarking on an expensive and highly speculative exercise in policy
experimentation when there still remain a substantial number of basic problems
within the educational system in the Northern Territory for which
evidence-based solutions have been identified but have yet to be implemented.
The Australian Greens believe that there is a significant opportunity for
the Commonwealth Government to contribute to improving school attendance and
school outcomes by using its capacity and resources to assist State and Territory
Governments, education departments and individual schools to pull together the
knowledge and experience gained from existing successful programs and act on
the recommendations of existing reviews. We acknowledge that the 'What Works'
initiative[37]
could be a step in this direction and believe the resources being committed to
this speculative and punitive measure would be better dedicated to project
implementation funding to assist the roll-out and assessment of some of these
initiatives.
The Aboriginal Legal Service of WA provided evidence to the
committee about the Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness Program
(ASSPA), which was a successful program that the Commonwealth ceased funding in
early 2000. This program directly addressed the need to engage parents and
carers in the culture and ethos of the school, through the formation of ASSPA
committees. Over 12 years to 2000 3,811 ASSPA committees were established. In
some schools these committees were able to have a high level of involvement in
education decision making and were able to institute a range of language and
cultural activities including language teaching resources and trips to country
which were successful in increasing the attendance and engagement of Aboriginal
students.[38]
ALSWA also provided evidence on the success of the Foodbank
WA School Breakfast Program. An assessment of this program had found that 81.7%
of respondents to the survey indicated an improvement in class attendance and
19.2% reported a substantial improvement. In addition 90% indicated improved
engagement in class and 90.3% reported improved student concentration levels.
The program also resulted in higher levels of parental participation in
schools, with 82.5% indicating increased participation.[39]
Recommendation 2: The
Australian Greens recommend that the Commonwealth Government prioritise
investment in incentive-based programs that have demonstrated success in
addressing the underlying causes of poor school attendance and engagement and
improving educational outcomes
Vulnerable children and families
The Australian Greens are concerned by the possible impacts
on vulnerable children and families, particularly where there are complex
problems and risk factors which may be exacerbated through contact with this
punitive regime. We are particularly concerned by the unintended consequences
for other innocent family members where an older child is truanting and there
are several younger children who are attending school and likely to be
adversely impacted by the suspension or cancellation of supporting income.
This may be particularly problematic for single parent families and for foster
families, especially where there is an older child that they are struggling to
control and unable to compel to attend school. This may prove to be a further
disincentive to foster-parents in particular, who may risk jeopardising their
ability to provide and care for their own children by taking on the care of
someone else's child - especially where that child has had a difficult and
traumatic childhood, a history of poor engagement school and attendance and may
be failing at school.
The Welfare
Rights Network notes:
Currently there is the potential
for those who have limited capacity due to the above factors (vulnerable
parents/guardians, physical or psychiatric disability, drug or alcohol abuse,
domestic violence) to be exempted either fully or partially from certain
participation requirements to receive income support payments. It is not clear
whether this type of vulnerability or a reduced capacity to comply will be
permitted."[40]
There is also a risk that the threat of loss of parental
income support may lead some families at risk to force teenagers to leave home
so as not to jeopardise family income. Families where there have been
acrimonious separations and there are ongoing disputes about the care and
custody of children are also potentially at risk. Where there are shared-care
arrangements it is unclear whether one or both parents will be penalised if a
child truants, and it may prove difficult for one parent to have any influence
over whether the other parent is encouraging or compelling a child to go to
school.[41]
Given that the legislation will apply to any parent who has at least 14% of the
care there is the potential for a parent who may only have care of their child
on the weekend to be penalised for non-attendance over which they have no
influence or control. The possibility of sanctions could prove a disincentive
to some parents to be involved in the care of a child, even though this care
may well be in the child's best interests.
Recommendation 3: If this
legislation proceeds, the Australian Greens recommend that the Commonwealth
Government clarify how the proposed legislation will impact upon separated
families and introduce amendments to ensure that where a parent does not have
control of a child's attendance at school this is considered a 'reasonable
excuse'
A number of witnesses were also concerned by the possible
interaction of this scheme with families where there have been child protection
notifications and parents or guardians are fearful of having a child removed
from their care.[42]
There is a real risk that parents or guardians who have already been subject to
a child protection notification will be fearful of engaging with authorities or
contesting the referral and might decide that losing access to income support
is preferable to the perceived risk of having a child removed.[43] This is particularly
problematic for Aboriginal families where there has been a history of removal
of children by white authorities, and poor parenting skills and a poor
relationship with school authorities are a known consequence of that removal.
The research conducted by the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey
has quantified the impact of forced child removal on intergenerational trauma,
and poor health, well-being and education outcomes.[44]
Recommendation 4: If this
legislation proceeds, the Australian Greens recommend that the Commonwealth
Government clarify how the proposed legislation will impact upon families who
are already engaged with the child protection system and take steps to ensure
that the legislation does not result in negative outcomes for families at risk.
One group of disadvantaged students for which the question
of school attendance versus educational outcomes is particularly important is
those living with a disability – especially children with autism where there
are not support services available, where teaches and classes lack the capacity
to cope, or where their disability is yet to be diagnosed. While this issue was
not raised during the Senate Inquiry it has since been brought to our
attention.[45]
We have also been made aware that children with a disability are significantly
over-represented in distance education, with large numbers of families who are
not living remotely opting to disengage from school attendance after traumatic
experiences with local schools. These families are clearly making a decision
based on their experiences of failure within the education system to put
educational outcomes ahead of direct attendance.
Recommendation 5: If this
legislation proceeds, the Australian Greens recommend that the Commonwealth
Government address the needs of children with a disability for access to
appropriate education and support, and ensure that the provisions of this
legislation do not adversely impact on them.
Young carers are another vulnerable group that we believe
are placed at risk by this legislation. As the WACOSS submission pointed out:
40,000 young carers currently live
across WA, according to research conducted by Curtin University in 2004. Young
carers as a target population have one of the highest school drop-out rates.
Only 4% on young primary carers between the age of 15-25 years are still at
school, compared to 23% of the general population.[46]
The proposed legislation is likely to have a
disproportionate and exacerbating impact on young carers who are already
struggling to care for a parent or family member with a disability. Many of
these carers are embarrassed or ashamed of their caring arrangements and are
known to be reticent to acknowledge issues and come forward for help. This
issue may become particularly fraught where they are caring for a parent who
has an intermittent mental health problem, which is likely to be exacerbated by
contact from Centrelink and the threat of income suspension, and may result in
them avoiding or refusing contact with support services or a Centrelink social
worker. While we note that in response to Questions on Notice, DEEWR has indicated
that the circumstances of young carers will be relevant to the 'reasonable
excuse' and 'special circumstances' provisions we remain concerned that, where
acknowledgement and contact is avoided, the details of these circumstances may
not come to light until serious hardship is experienced.
Recommendation 6: If this
legislation proceeds, the Australian Greens recommend that the Commonwealth
Government address the needs of children who are caring for a parent or family
member with a disability and ensure appropriate support and respite services
are available to enable them to attend school and to help them address
educational disadvantage experienced as a result of caring for a loved one.
Availability and capacity of existing support services
DEEWR have indicated an additional 3 social workers will be
provided as part of the mobile team to service the 6 Northern Territory
communities involved in the trial, and that an additional social worker will be
provided in each of the metropolitan trial sites (the Cannington region in WA
and another location yet to be announced).[47]
DEEWR also emphasised that beyond the provision of social
workers – who we suspect will have their work cut out contacting families and
assessing 'special circumstances' 'reasonable excuses' and whether 'reasonable
efforts' have been made to comply – DEEWR consider it the role of state
governments and authorities, individual schools and non-government community
service agencies to provide other social support and to develop and put in
place attendance strategies. They also stated that there is no provision for
financial case management under this legislation.[48]
The Australian Greens note the evidence provided by WACOSS
that community service and crisis support agencies are already severely
stretched and unable to cope with unmet need, with 9750 people were turned away
from overloaded community services in 2006-07 (even though 80% of these people
were eligible for help).
ACOSS also stated that they considered that the trials would
involve "serious implementation and resource challenges"[49] and noted that there was
"potential for the policy to be applied unevenly across the trial sites
depending on the school's capacity to work with families to address underlying
issues."[50]
The Australian Greens are deeply concerned that additional
resources are not being provided to address both case management and financial
crisis. Schools need to be provided with the resources and the expertise to
comprehensively assist children who have been marginalised from school to
reconnect, re-engage, make up lost ground and achieve educational outcomes.
Recommendation 7: The
Australian Greens recommend that the Commonwealth Government engage with
community service organisations to address existing capacity restraints and
unmet need, and ensure that additional resources are provided to address the
increased demand for support services as a result of the trial.
Transfer of confidential data between schools, education
authorities and Centrelink
A number of witnesses expressed concern about the lack of
clarity within the proposed legislation concerning the transfer of confidential
data and the lack of safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals caught up
in these provisions. [51]
In answer to questions on notice DEEWR indicated that
Centrelink would not supply schools with a list of families on income support,
and it was at the discretion of individual schools to refer individual cases to
Centrelink. DEEWR emphasises that it was the responsibility of the schools (and
implicitly, State or territory education authorities) to develop and implement
a strategy to address poor attendance, and that it should only be after parents
have failed to cooperate with these strategies that a referral should be made.[52] We note however, that there
is no provision for additional resources for schools to develop and implement
these attendance strategies, and schools capacity and resources to do so are
likely to be patchy.
As ACOSS pointed out:
"...the legislation does not
impose mandatory reporting requirements on school authorities and officials. It
is not clear whether Centrelink is to determine whether the required rate of
attendance is reasonable and what expertise Centrelink officials will have in
considering factors related to the school environment and family circumstances.[53]
As it will not be immediately clear to school authorities
which students are children of or cared for by parents or families on income
support (except in those cases where parents and families have applied through
the school for assistance programs for things such as books and uniforms) this
means that principals may need to forward names or lists of names that may
include parents and families who are not income support recipients. We note
that Section 124P authorises the exchange of this information and acknowledge
that DEEWR assert that information exchange must be in accordance of the
Privacy Principles contained in Section 14 of the Privacy Act 1988,[54] however we remained
concerned that Centrelink will be receiving details for parents and families
who are not Centrelink clients, and reported that the information systems to
deal with this confidential data have yet to be designed and implemented.[55] We note the implied
complexity and scale of these systems, as indicated by the fact that 80% of the
$12.6 million cost of administering the measure has been allocated of IT
staffing alone. By comparison, only $0.3 million has been allocated to
assessment and evaluation of project outcomes.
Extent and impact of the proposed legislation
Government spokespeople, including the Minister for
Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing,[56] have sought to emphasise
that the Legislation is a one-year 'trial' which is restricted to eight
communities. The Australian Greens note however that the proposed legislation
is not restricted either spatially or geographically as suggested by the
government, but rather applies to all Australians who are in receipt of the
relevant income support payments and has no trial end-date, no provisions for
trial evaluation and criteria for continuation, and no sunset clause. There is
nothing in the Bill that guarantees that once the legislation is passed it
cannot and will not be extended to other communities, and nothing that
stipulates that it must achieve attendance targets and deliver measurable
outcomes in educational performance for it to be considered a success.
Recommendation 8: The
Australian Greens recommend that the Commonwealth Government introduce a sunset
clause for the legislation and specify geographic boundaries to its application
to specify that it only applies to those communities involved in the trial and
only for the trial period.
Recommendation 9: The Australian
Greens also recommend that the Commonwealth Government specify within the
legislation the evaluation framework and criteria to stipulate clear targets
and outcomes for the assessment and evaluation of the trials success or
failure.
Definitional issues
Many witnesses to the inquiry expressed concern that a
number of the key concepts within the Bill were not adequately defined and that
there would be substantial differences in interpretation leading to patchy and
inconsistent application of the measures. The Australian Greens remain
concerned that what constitutes a "reasonable excuse" or
"special circumstances" is not defined within the legislation and
will be left to yet-to-be-developed guidelines over which there will be no
parliamentary scrutiny.
We are also concerned that what constitutes a
"reasonable effort" to encourage or compel a child to attend school
or to engage with the school, State or territory educational authorities,
non-government service providers or Centrelink social workers is similarly
ambiguous and open to interpretation. We note that Centrelink social workers
are unlikely to have a relevant background in educational practice and yet will
be required to assess referrals from schools to determine whether parental
responsibility is to blame for attendance failures. This may become
particularly problematic where there is an ongoing dispute with the school over
issues such as unrecognised on unaddressed bullying, or conflict with a teacher
or principal where the student may not be wholly to blame.
We note that, while the Minister for Education, Julia
Gillard MP has emphasised that the suspension or cancellation of income support
is intended to be used only as a "last resort" that this language is
not used within the Bill, and there is nothing to compel the Secretary of
Centrelink to in fact ensure that all other efforts have been made to improve
school attendance, all other options have been exhausted, and that any such
cancellation or suspension is in fact being used as an option of last resort.
Conclusion
The Australian Greens believe that the Social Security and
Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008
is extremely poor social policy. It is not evidence based, and in fact the
evidence presented to the committee inquiry overwhelmingly shows this approach
will not work. This punitive approach that will cause more harm that good, and
it is targeted at punishing parents rather than addressing the needs of
children and the underlying causes of failure to attend to school.
The Australian Greens believe that this legislation should
be withdrawn.
We urge the Government to commit resources to addressing the
causes of child alienation from the education system and to take an
incentives-based approach that encourages families and communities to engage
with the school culture ... and likewise encourages schools to open their doors
and reach out to the community.
Recommendation 10: The
Australian Greens recommend that the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements
Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 not be passed.
Senator Rachel Siewert
Appendix 1
Analysis of
results from the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey
Modelling the association between school
attendance and student factors[57]
A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to model the
probability of having an attendance ratio at or below 87.5 per cent, i.e.
absent from school for 26 days or more (Table 4.22). The following
student-related factors were found to be independently associated with being
absent from school for 26 days or more in a school year.
- Language spoken in the playground. Students who spoke
Aboriginal English in the playground were over twice as likely (Odds Ratio
2.06; CI: 1.39–3.06) to have been absent from school for 26 days or more than
students who spoke English in the playground. Students who spoke an Aboriginal
language were nearly six times more likely (Odds Ratio 5.77; CI: 2.00–16.40).
- Risk of clinically significant emotional or behavioural
difficulties. Students assessed from teacher reports to be at high risk of
clinically significant emotional or behavioural difficulties were twice as
likely (Odds Ratio 1.98; CI: 1.42–2.76) as students at low risk of being absent
from school for at least 26 days in the school year.
- Ever been in day care. Students who had never been in day
care were almost twice as likely (Odds Ratio 1.91; CI: 1.41–2.59) to have been
absent from school for at least 26 days than students who had been in day care.
- Primary carer or partner needed to see school principal about
problem student had at school. Students whose carers had needed to see the
school principal in the past six months because of problems the student
was having at school were almost twice as likely (Odds Ratio 1.89; CI:
1.35–2.65) to have been absent from school for 26 days or more.
- Helping with school work at home. Students who have no-one
to help them with their school work were almost twice as likely (Odds Ratio
1.86; CI: 1.18–2.91) to have been absent from school for at least 26 days than
those who were helped with their school work by someone within their household.
- Has trouble getting enough sleep. Students who have
trouble getting enough sleep were almost twice as likely (Odds Ratio 1.73; CI:
1.19–2.51) to be absent from school for at least 26 days in the school year
than students who did not have trouble getting enough sleep.
- Overall academic performance. Students with low academic
performance were almost twice as likely (Odds Ratio 1.76; CI: 1.37–2.24) to be
absent for at least 26 days in a school year than students whose overall
academic performance was average or above average.
Modelling the association between school attendance and
carer factors[58]
A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed and it was
found that, when carer factors were controlled, the following carer factors
were independently associated with the student being absent from school for at
least 26 days (Table 4.31).
- Primary carer forcibly separated from natural family. Students
whose primary carer had been forcibly separated from their natural family were
over one and a half times more likely (Odds Ratio 1.75; CI: 1.19–2.56) to have
been absent for at least 26 days in a school year than students whose primary
carer had not been forcibly separated.
- Primary carer highest level of education. Students whose
carers had been educated to Years 11 or 12 were one and a half times less
likely (Odds Ratio 0.65; CI: 0.49–0.87) to have been absent from school for 26
days or more than students whose carers left school after Year 10. Similarly,
students whose carers had been educated for 13 years or more were over one and
a half times less likely (Odds Ratio 0.57; CI: 0.34–0.96) to have been absent
from school for 26 days or more.
- Primary carer labour force status. Students whose primary
carers were either unemployed or not in the labour force were over one and a
half times more likely (Odds Ratio 1.61; CI: 1.09–2.38 and Odds Ratio 1.73; CI:
1.34–2.24 respectively) to have missed at least 26 days of school than students
whose primary carers were employed.
- Primary carer ever arrested. Students whose primary carer
had ever been arrested or charged with an offence were one and a half times
more likely (Odds Ratio 1.45; CI: 1.14–1.85) to have missed at least 26 days of
school than students whose primary carers had never been arrested or charged.
- Primary carer attended an Aboriginal funeral in the past 12
months. Students whose primary carers had attended an Aboriginal funeral
were one and a half times more likely (Odds Ratio 1.57; CI: 1.19–2.06) to have
been absent from school for 26 days or more.
- Main language spoken. Students whose primary carer spoke
Aboriginal English as their main language were four times more likely (Odds
Ratio 4.04; CI: 1.30–12.40) to have been absent from school for 26 days or more
and three times more likely (Odds Ratio 2.62; CI: 1.22–5.64) if their carer
spoke an Aboriginal language.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page