Editorial: Stuck in the status quo
EDITORIAL: THE State Government’s Education Act is a significant package of reform which provides a blueprint for the way education could and should be delivered in Tasmania.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
THE State Government’s Education Act passed through the Lower House last week.
It is a significant package of reform which provides a blueprint for the way education could and should be delivered in Tasmania.
When key changes in the Act were first announced, lowering the compulsory school starting age for prep from five to four years and six months was a central reform.
An outcry ensued and Education Minister Jeremy Rockliff subsequently told Parliament the lower starting age would instead be optional.
“Children will be required to start school in the prep year at five years old, just as they currently are. But if parents feel their child is ready, they can start six months earlier, at four and a half,” he said.
“Parents will also have the choice of sending their child to kindergarten at the age of three years and six months, instead of four years, though this will remain optional.”
It seemed a reasonable compromise; if anything an unexpectedly soft touch on an issue in which the Government had previously seemed so resolute.
But given the anger expressed by sections of the community — the childcare sector in particular — it was not unexpected.
The Government has at times been criticised for being too consultative, for attempting to appease a little too much. Those critics have a point, but the Government will point to the likes of Mike Baird and Campbell Newman, both initially very popular leaders who destroyed much of the goodwill which saw them elected by aggressively pursuing policies which alienated their core constituencies.
Plus, the Government’s compromise won praise in important sectors.
Tasmania’s Commissioner for Children and Young People Mark Morrissey, who supported a lower compulsory starting age, described it as a reasonable way forward. The Tasmanian Association of State School Organisations said leaving it to parents to decide if their children start school early “re-emphasises the fact that the parent is the first educator of the child”. The Tasmanian Principals Association backed it.
Economist Saul Eslake, a supporter of lowering the school starting age, was less circumspect, saying the Government’s backdown came in the face of “irrational opposition”. “All that’s being asked is that Tasmania come into line with the mainland,” he said.
Now the ultimate fate of the Bill appears tied with the Upper House.
The Mercury has published all sides of this debate — and will continue to do so — but our editorial position is to support the move.
We believe Tasmania should be brought into line with other states. Tasmania has the oldest starting age across the country and among the worst education outcomes. Lowering the school starting age, especially in a voluntary capacity, should be a fairly straightforward decision to align us — if parents choose to do so — with the national and international experience. At some point the status quo must be broken. Serious and meaningful education reforms must be embraced.
The Upper House needs to do the right thing.