❓ Mr. Grylls questions the Premier about the potential negative impact of integrating Year 7 students into high schools on small, rural primary schools, particularly concerning reduced resources and potential school closures. The Premier assures that the best interests of children and the viability of schools will be considered.
AnsweredQoN 518Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
HIGH SCHOOLS - INCLUSION OF YEAR 7 STUDENTS
I refer to the Premier’s response yesterday to a question asked by the member for Greenough in which he claimed that the integration of year 7 students into high schools would not have a detrimental effect on the viability of country primary schools. (1) Is the Premier aware that many small country communities have only a primary school, from kindergarten to year 7, and that the nearest district high school could be up to an hour away by bus? (2) Under such circumstances, will the Premier please clarify how the removal of all year 7 students from a small primary school, resulting in fewer students, teachers and resources at the school, could possibly be in the best interests of the remaining students and not have a negative impact on the school and the community? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
I refer to the Premier’s response yesterday to a question asked by the member for Greenough in which he claimed that the integration of year 7 students into high schools would not have a detrimental effect on the viability of country primary schools. (1) Is the Premier aware that many small country communities have only a primary school, from kindergarten to year 7, and that the nearest district high school could be up to an hour away by bus? (2) Under such circumstances, will the Premier please clarify how the removal of all year 7 students from a small primary school, resulting in fewer students, teachers and resources at the school, could possibly be in the best interests of the remaining students and not have a negative impact on the school and the community? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I think what I said about that point is that the best interests of the children would be taken into account. It would not be in the best interests of the children of a particular school if the removal of a cohort were to result in the closure of that school. Some country schools have extremely small numbers of students. Obviously all those factors will need to be taken into consideration if a decision is made along those lines. I want to clarify the point. It has been an ongoing process for some years that the general model for when middle schools are developed or new high schools are built is that they cater for years 7 to 12. That is because of the factors I pointed out yesterday, including the age change, in which up to 50 per cent of the year 7 cohort turns 13 in that year. An obvious question arises and that has been addressed in the development of new schools. In relation to existing schools, the conditions around the district, the impact on the children and the impact on the school would be taken into consideration. It would be very foolish to make a decision to take a small number of the children and put them into a district high school if that would have a negative impact on the entire primary school. It may well be that that decision can still be made and the school remain open and the resources maintained. That would be up to the department’s judgment. Nobody, regardless of who is the education minister, would pursue a policy that would see the wholesale closure of small country primary schools. It would not be to anyone’s benefit and to a lot of people’s detriment.
(1) Is the Premier aware that many small country communities have only a primary school, from kindergarten to year 7, and that the nearest district high school could be up to an hour away by bus? (2) Under such circumstances, will the Premier please clarify how the removal of all year 7 students from a small primary school, resulting in fewer students, teachers and resources at the school, could possibly be in the best interests of the remaining students and not have a negative impact on the school and the community? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I think what I said about that point is that the best interests of the children would be taken into account. It would not be in the best interests of the children of a particular school if the removal of a cohort were to result in the closure of that school. Some country schools have extremely small numbers of students. Obviously all those factors will need to be taken into consideration if a decision is made along those lines. I want to clarify the point. It has been an ongoing process for some years that the general model for when middle schools are developed or new high schools are built is that they cater for years 7 to 12. That is because of the factors I pointed out yesterday, including the age change, in which up to 50 per cent of the year 7 cohort turns 13 in that year. An obvious question arises and that has been addressed in the development of new schools. In relation to existing schools, the conditions around the district, the impact on the children and the impact on the school would be taken into consideration. It would be very foolish to make a decision to take a small number of the children and put them into a district high school if that would have a negative impact on the entire primary school. It may well be that that decision can still be made and the school remain open and the resources maintained. That would be up to the department’s judgment. Nobody, regardless of who is the education minister, would pursue a policy that would see the wholesale closure of small country primary schools. It would not be to anyone’s benefit and to a lot of people’s detriment.
(2) Under such circumstances, will the Premier please clarify how the removal of all year 7 students from a small primary school, resulting in fewer students, teachers and resources at the school, could possibly be in the best interests of the remaining students and not have a negative impact on the school and the community? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I think what I said about that point is that the best interests of the children would be taken into account. It would not be in the best interests of the children of a particular school if the removal of a cohort were to result in the closure of that school. Some country schools have extremely small numbers of students. Obviously all those factors will need to be taken into consideration if a decision is made along those lines. I want to clarify the point. It has been an ongoing process for some years that the general model for when middle schools are developed or new high schools are built is that they cater for years 7 to 12. That is because of the factors I pointed out yesterday, including the age change, in which up to 50 per cent of the year 7 cohort turns 13 in that year. An obvious question arises and that has been addressed in the development of new schools. In relation to existing schools, the conditions around the district, the impact on the children and the impact on the school would be taken into consideration. It would be very foolish to make a decision to take a small number of the children and put them into a district high school if that would have a negative impact on the entire primary school. It may well be that that decision can still be made and the school remain open and the resources maintained. That would be up to the department’s judgment. Nobody, regardless of who is the education minister, would pursue a policy that would see the wholesale closure of small country primary schools. It would not be to anyone’s benefit and to a lot of people’s detriment.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I think what I said about that point is that the best interests of the children would be taken into account. It would not be in the best interests of the children of a particular school if the removal of a cohort were to result in the closure of that school. Some country schools have extremely small numbers of students. Obviously all those factors will need to be taken into consideration if a decision is made along those lines. I want to clarify the point. It has been an ongoing process for some years that the general model for when middle schools are developed or new high schools are built is that they cater for years 7 to 12. That is because of the factors I pointed out yesterday, including the age change, in which up to 50 per cent of the year 7 cohort turns 13 in that year. An obvious question arises and that has been addressed in the development of new schools. In relation to existing schools, the conditions around the district, the impact on the children and the impact on the school would be taken into consideration. It would be very foolish to make a decision to take a small number of the children and put them into a district high school if that would have a negative impact on the entire primary school. It may well be that that decision can still be made and the school remain open and the resources maintained. That would be up to the department’s judgment. Nobody, regardless of who is the education minister, would pursue a policy that would see the wholesale closure of small country primary schools. It would not be to anyone’s benefit and to a lot of people’s detriment.
(1)-(2) I think what I said about that point is that the best interests of the children would be taken into account. It would not be in the best interests of the children of a particular school if the removal of a cohort were to result in the closure of that school. Some country schools have extremely small numbers of students. Obviously all those factors will need to be taken into consideration if a decision is made along those lines. I want to clarify the point. It has been an ongoing process for some years that the general model for when middle schools are developed or new high schools are built is that they cater for years 7 to 12. That is because of the factors I pointed out yesterday, including the age change, in which up to 50 per cent of the year 7 cohort turns 13 in that year. An obvious question arises and that has been addressed in the development of new schools. In relation to existing schools, the conditions around the district, the impact on the children and the impact on the school would be taken into consideration. It would be very foolish to make a decision to take a small number of the children and put them into a district high school if that would have a negative impact on the entire primary school. It may well be that that decision can still be made and the school remain open and the resources maintained. That would be up to the department’s judgment. Nobody, regardless of who is the education minister, would pursue a policy that would see the wholesale closure of small country primary schools. It would not be to anyone’s benefit and to a lot of people’s detriment.
(1) Is the Premier aware that many small country communities have only a primary school, from kindergarten to year 7, and that the nearest district high school could be up to an hour away by bus? (2) Under such circumstances, will the Premier please clarify how the removal of all year 7 students from a small primary school, resulting in fewer students, teachers and resources at the school, could possibly be in the best interests of the remaining students and not have a negative impact on the school and the community? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I think what I said about that point is that the best interests of the children would be taken into account. It would not be in the best interests of the children of a particular school if the removal of a cohort were to result in the closure of that school. Some country schools have extremely small numbers of students. Obviously all those factors will need to be taken into consideration if a decision is made along those lines. I want to clarify the point. It has been an ongoing process for some years that the general model for when middle schools are developed or new high schools are built is that they cater for years 7 to 12. That is because of the factors I pointed out yesterday, including the age change, in which up to 50 per cent of the year 7 cohort turns 13 in that year. An obvious question arises and that has been addressed in the development of new schools. In relation to existing schools, the conditions around the district, the impact on the children and the impact on the school would be taken into consideration. It would be very foolish to make a decision to take a small number of the children and put them into a district high school if that would have a negative impact on the entire primary school. It may well be that that decision can still be made and the school remain open and the resources maintained. That would be up to the department’s judgment. Nobody, regardless of who is the education minister, would pursue a policy that would see the wholesale closure of small country primary schools. It would not be to anyone’s benefit and to a lot of people’s detriment.
(2) Under such circumstances, will the Premier please clarify how the removal of all year 7 students from a small primary school, resulting in fewer students, teachers and resources at the school, could possibly be in the best interests of the remaining students and not have a negative impact on the school and the community? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I think what I said about that point is that the best interests of the children would be taken into account. It would not be in the best interests of the children of a particular school if the removal of a cohort were to result in the closure of that school. Some country schools have extremely small numbers of students. Obviously all those factors will need to be taken into consideration if a decision is made along those lines. I want to clarify the point. It has been an ongoing process for some years that the general model for when middle schools are developed or new high schools are built is that they cater for years 7 to 12. That is because of the factors I pointed out yesterday, including the age change, in which up to 50 per cent of the year 7 cohort turns 13 in that year. An obvious question arises and that has been addressed in the development of new schools. In relation to existing schools, the conditions around the district, the impact on the children and the impact on the school would be taken into consideration. It would be very foolish to make a decision to take a small number of the children and put them into a district high school if that would have a negative impact on the entire primary school. It may well be that that decision can still be made and the school remain open and the resources maintained. That would be up to the department’s judgment. Nobody, regardless of who is the education minister, would pursue a policy that would see the wholesale closure of small country primary schools. It would not be to anyone’s benefit and to a lot of people’s detriment.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(2) I think what I said about that point is that the best interests of the children would be taken into account. It would not be in the best interests of the children of a particular school if the removal of a cohort were to result in the closure of that school. Some country schools have extremely small numbers of students. Obviously all those factors will need to be taken into consideration if a decision is made along those lines. I want to clarify the point. It has been an ongoing process for some years that the general model for when middle schools are developed or new high schools are built is that they cater for years 7 to 12. That is because of the factors I pointed out yesterday, including the age change, in which up to 50 per cent of the year 7 cohort turns 13 in that year. An obvious question arises and that has been addressed in the development of new schools. In relation to existing schools, the conditions around the district, the impact on the children and the impact on the school would be taken into consideration. It would be very foolish to make a decision to take a small number of the children and put them into a district high school if that would have a negative impact on the entire primary school. It may well be that that decision can still be made and the school remain open and the resources maintained. That would be up to the department’s judgment. Nobody, regardless of who is the education minister, would pursue a policy that would see the wholesale closure of small country primary schools. It would not be to anyone’s benefit and to a lot of people’s detriment.
(1)-(2) I think what I said about that point is that the best interests of the children would be taken into account. It would not be in the best interests of the children of a particular school if the removal of a cohort were to result in the closure of that school. Some country schools have extremely small numbers of students. Obviously all those factors will need to be taken into consideration if a decision is made along those lines. I want to clarify the point. It has been an ongoing process for some years that the general model for when middle schools are developed or new high schools are built is that they cater for years 7 to 12. That is because of the factors I pointed out yesterday, including the age change, in which up to 50 per cent of the year 7 cohort turns 13 in that year. An obvious question arises and that has been addressed in the development of new schools. In relation to existing schools, the conditions around the district, the impact on the children and the impact on the school would be taken into consideration. It would be very foolish to make a decision to take a small number of the children and put them into a district high school if that would have a negative impact on the entire primary school. It may well be that that decision can still be made and the school remain open and the resources maintained. That would be up to the department’s judgment. Nobody, regardless of who is the education minister, would pursue a policy that would see the wholesale closure of small country primary schools. It would not be to anyone’s benefit and to a lot of people’s detriment.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.