Earlier this month, Education Minster Shane Rattenbury advised the Legislative Assembly that "the definition of school capacity has been expanded to ensure that all learning and teaching spaces, including curriculum flexibility spaces and special education spaces … have been included".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The elucidation was little remarked upon at the time, being part of a longish statement Mr Rattenbury gave in relation to the tabling of 2017-18 enrolment projections for Canberra public schools. Mr Rattenbury's media release of that same day outlining how the projections were assisting "in planning for and managing" growth in public schools didn't mention it either. It's not escaped Steve Doszpot's attentions, however.
The Opposition education spokesman accused the government of an "outrageous manipulation of data" to allow it to evade criticism over allowing schools to enroll more students than their mainstream capacity. The ACT Council of Parents and Citizens Association, meanwhile, has said the change "appears to be a very cynical move" while the Australian Education Union is seeking a briefing from Mr Rattenbury.
At the heart of this contretemps is the reality that more and more schools are struggling to deal with expanding enrolments. This is not an unusual occurrence in countries of rapid population growth, as Australia is.
Perversely, overcrowding in Canberra is occurring more often in established suburbs than in the newer districts – a result of Labor's urban infill policies. Garran Primary, for example, is currently at 98.7 per cent of capacity – defined by the Education Directorate as "the total number of students that a school can hold before any additional infrastructure works is required".
Squeezing more students into established schools like Garran makes eminent good sense given that the options – installing demountables, extending, or building an entire new campus – are costly and disruptive. However, potential problems arise where class sizes become overly large and unwieldy or where space given over for the support of special-needs students or for other specialised learning is reclaimed for other uses.
That the government would countenance higher school capacity figures while at the same time championing smaller class sizes and encouraging the integration of special-needs students into mainstream schools is concerning.
Proactively managing enrolment growth rates is not easy. Independent schools compete with public schools for enrolments. Suburbs with apparently thriving populations of school-age children can mature to the point where their school's enrolments fall below minimum necessary levels. Schools which attract large out-of-area-enrolments – as seems to be the case with Garran – complicate matters too.
Then again, the ACT is a compact and prosperous city state with highly centralised housing development and urban infill policies. That ought to make the management and long-term planning of enrolments a relatively straightforward proposition – far easier, say, than managing the NSW or Queensland public systems.
Instead of massaging capacity figures to give a misleading impression of their expertise, the Education Directorate should look to even out enrolments across the Territory as far as possible, and tighten restrictions on out-of-area enrolments