Coalition opens bidding

By Maree O’Halloran

The state election campaign proper began on November 3 when Opposition leader John Brogden released the Coalition's plan to reduce class sizes, K-2, to an average of 21 across the state by 2007.

The release was timely, caught the State Government unprepared and positions the Coalition well in the NSW political landscape post the Cunningham by-election.

The drive to smaller class sizes in the early years of schooling is now irresistible and irreversible. Polling shows its innate popularity and compelling research demonstrates its validity. Labor's persistent Treasury-driven opposition signals a slipping hold on Government.

Federation's sample polling shows that in October 2002, 88 per cent of people either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that "smaller class sizes in public schools would give kids more opportunity to be successful at school". Significantly, 84 per cent either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that "the government should put more money into reducing class sizes in government schools". No wonder the Coalition acted. Federation members have informed public opinion over the past 18 months, convincing the electorate of the benefits of smaller class sizes.

The Coalition's plan is not without its flaws. The key to better class sizes is the word "maximum" and the Coalition has not yet uttered it. An "average" class size of 21 potentially delivers only a small real benefit because class sizes in PP6 and PP5 schools can bring the state average down.

Nevertheless, a comprehensive policy is before the people well out from the state election. This is the action of a responsible leader. It allows for discussion and negotiation to better the policy. Federation is currently engaged in this process with the Opposition.

Education beats crime

Earlier this year the "law and order" auction reached its peak. Educational policy and investment seemed likely to be subsumed in the "law and order" auction.

The staged releases of the findings of the Inquiry into the provision of public education in NSW (the Vinson Inquiry) and consequent informed debate has diverted that distorted debate. The Vinson Inquiry, sponsored by the P&C and the Federation for the future of our children, has produced a positive and costed plan to unite the community. We have filled the vacuum created by a tired government. We have engaged in the necessary strategic and long-term planning about the provision of public education in this state. The future of our children and society require that both Government and Opposition act. There is an educational policy vacuum and a gross under-investment in public education in this state. The vacuum and the coffers must be filled.

Lobby days

Parents, teachers and principals who descend on Parliament House on November 20 and regional MPs offices in the following week have a critical task. The political parties have started their bidding for education votes. It's our task to shape the policies they put before the electorate. Armed with the findings of the Vinson Inquiry and our understanding of public education, we are a unique and significant voice.

It is likely that our voice of reason will turn to anger if the legitimate claims of the Public Education Alliance are not met. The Minister's and the Premier's recent twisting and turning on the findings of the Vinson Inquiry (which exposed the state's under-investment in education) will fuel such anger. Hurting from this exposure, the Government set Treasury officials to work to obfuscate. Despite Treasury officials being briefed well before the Vinson releases and making no demur at the time, they have now found that the publicly-available national reporting figures (known and agreed by NSW) disadvantage NSW. How? Some states include notional costs like the "user cost of capital" in their figures; others do not. The Treasury officials sought to solve the quandary by allocating such notional costs to all states. Sound reasonable, except that the "user cost of capital" is much higher in NSW than elsewhere. The "user cost capital" is the notional allocation of what it costs to have a student sit in a building on land in NSW. Is this the Government's response to our claims for more investment in public education?

The Government's purpose is not to damage Professor Vinson's credibility but to give their MPs and candidates the defence of obfuscation to our under-investment claims.

Treasury officials had another option. They could have removed all notional costs from the figures. This option was not chosen because that set of figures shows NSW performing poorly compared to other states and the national average.

Salaries

The planned Lobby Days are also the opportunity to lobby for substantial increases in the salary levels of the profession. An additional five per cent in the current award as recommended by the Vinson Inquiry and the 20 per cent claim for the next award is required. The Public Education Alliance's six claims include attracting and retaining teachers in an era of teacher shortage. Salary levels are obviously part of meeting this claim. Coalition MPs should be strongly quizzed about Brogden's advocacy of salary increases for a chosen few.

The Independent Education Union has also foreshadowed a 20 per cent salaries claim for their next award. Part of their claim is about the workload generated by students and parents using teacher's personal e-mail accounts. A potentially infinite workload arises from such a situation. Federation wants to curtail teacher workload and hence we must be careful not to legitimise increased workload through being paid for it. November Council will consider separate recommendations about the future salaries claim and workload issues.

For further information

November 2002 contents