LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, May 9, 1994
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will be resuming consideration
of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item
1.(c)(1) on page 36.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
If I can just get a bit of a further explanation in terms
of what it is that they actually do. Are
we talking about submission of all the school division budgets that are given
to the department through here, or what more specifically is this?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, it is as it says.
This is where our main policy and thought‑developing section is
within the department. It is done
different ways. Education is pretty
large, but within the context of greater centralization we have always sensed
that all of our renewed thinking or review should be passed through a group of
people who are learned in many respects, not the least of which is reading
literature, seeing what is happening elsewhere, reporting on what is happening
elsewhere, and to try and give greater insight into policy development or day‑to‑day
decisions. Of course, this group is
involved very closely with Administration and Finance, Program Development and
the BEF sections, if that is the question.
* (2005)
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, it does help clarify it somewhat. I would ask then in terms of the government
adopts priorities or strategy, how does it ensure that those priorities that it
has established are in fact being brought down?
Again, it is just more sort of as an explanation of trying to get a
better understanding.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is
movement both ways. There is not down or
up so much as there is‑‑and again, this depends on personalities,
this depends on the make‑up of, I guess to start at a place,
ministers. Some ministers are more
proactive as to wanting changes and/or certain thrusts, certain emphasis, as
compared to others. Others, of course,
like to stay within the existing routine and make decisions from day to day.
Then of course it depends on the deputy. Deputies have an awful lot of influence. Then, within the department, you have your
ADMs who also are given an awful lot of responsibility, beyond day to day
though, beyond to look into the future, look into the past and come forward
with recommendations.
The great clearing house of all of this and these different
forces at work, of course, is housed within the unit of policy and development,
and whoever has greater‑‑whoever is more dominant in these discussions
ultimately will come to a point where directions are given to staff to research
and/or prepare towards certain goals. So
it is a society in a sense. There is
nothing particularly novel about it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in my opening
remarks, I made reference to the government now being in for six years, a
number of Education ministers, and I look at it in terms of strategic
priorities.
I am somewhat curious in terms of why it is at this point
in time that we have been hearing about the whole need for education
reform. Is it because it is this
particular minister that is currently in place, or is this something that the
department within itself‑‑because the department as I say is the
one that develops the strategies for the ministers to prioritize, I guess. I wonder if the minister could comment on
that.
Mr. Manness: Again, my response will be somewhat similar
to the one I made. Our government has
been responsible for fostering a number of reviews in a number of areas. I think of the STAC report, and I think of
the High School Review inherited from the other government, but we have done a
number of reviews, the initiatives of which, of course, were to focus in on
areas of change.
Where the strategic direction came from those reviews, I
imagine some of them did start within the department. I imagine others have started within the
policy arm of government, the Premier's policy arm, and some are initiatives of
ministers. They can start almost
anywhere, but before they go very far, I mean they have to go through cabinet,
and ultimately, the cabinet decides whether or not the Department of Education
should maintain along a course. So to
the extent that the minister of the day starts them depends on who that
minister may or may not be, and you know the personalities play a large role
here.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not too sure if
this is maybe the most opportune or the best time to bring this particular
issue up, but it was made reference to earlier.
It is the amount of restructuring that was taking place. I was faxed a copy with respect to the
program development and support services, a number of different flow charts or
organizational structures. If this is
not the most appropriate time to discuss it, I would be interested in knowing
if in fact the minister could either provide for the actual differences. Because this is my first year as critic, all
I have is what the reform package entails.
To see first‑hand in terms of what the actual changes were, it would
be somewhat beneficial to have the last year's structures or organizational
structures. It all came to me through
the program development and support services where I understand that a vast
majority of the reorganization took place.
* (2010)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I could do it
now. I prefer very much to do it a
little further on when we get right into that division. It is a major division, a major change. The questions are certainly worthwhile
putting and hopefully responding, and the response will be worthwhile. I would ask the member maybe to defer till
then if he would not mind.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have
any problem with that. I would ask the
minister, if he does have the previous charts that it would be somewhat
beneficial for myself just to be able to crosscheck, again, so I can just get a
better understanding so that when it does come up, I am better able to ask
questions on it.
I know that the member for the New Democratic Party was
ending off while we adjourned, so I am quite content to let him have the floor
again.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think that more or
less was covered in last year's supplementary, but if it is not, we will try and
provide those leaflets for the member.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is the minister
working from a five‑year strategic plan, or is there such a thing right
now in the department?
Mr. Manness: Oh, there are always strategic plans in
departments. The member knows that. Am I working from one? Well, I am sure I am part of one. Do I go to it and look at it every night
before I turn in? The answer is no, but
everything we are doing is part of a strategy.
Mr. Plohman: I am sure it is part of a strategy. It might be a six‑month plan right now,
I do not know, or maybe three.
I just wondered if the minister has the plan, and maybe it
has been revised, whether he could table a strategic plan, the current one, for
the members of the committee.
Mr. Manness: Well, the deputy informs me that a strategic
plan began in '91, and it was to last till 1996, but obviously it is being
radically altered over the course of the last few months. The member was not here when I made comment
in response to a question put by the member for
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying he is altering the
plan to fit the current situation, perhaps accelerating some things or is it to
fit his own priorities as minister?
Mr. Manness: Well, certainly the latter‑‑I
mean, I have always prided myself in being a minister who likes to move on and
do things. I do not think what I am
doing is in any respect contrary to the plan, but even if it were, is a plan,
because it was developed in '91, sacred until '96? Of course, it is not. Nothing is particularly sacred, but the
general thrust and indeed much of the work that was done in 1990 and '91 and
'92 is going to come to ultimate fruition once the reform package comes down.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, you know we have a copy of the
original plan. I just wondered if the
minister had updated it as a result of the current actions and whether he would
be willing to table a revised strategic plan, because as the minister said, it
does change and nothing is sacred. So it
is a guideline, but these things change.
They are revised. So in keeping
with that, I just wanted to know if the minister had a revised plan and whether
that could be made available.
* (2015)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have a plan,
I mean, not that I can share with the member‑‑I put that qualifier
in.
When I look at in '91 what we referred to, we referred to
labour market development, we talked about rural development strategy, college
governance, adult literacy, basic education for adults, northern education
strategy, and I could go on and on and on.
Those are still key planks of the '91 plan, of the '91‑96 plan.
Mr. Plohman: Okay, so the minister can just be very clear
in his answer. He does not have a
revised plan that he could share with the committee. This is still working from the '91‑96
plan. It is not revised to become a '92‑97
plan, a '93‑98 plan, a '94‑99 and so on.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have never been
somebody who has been deeply in love with socialist five‑year plans. I understand strategic planning. If the member says we have not looked at the plan
or we have not done anything in concert with it‑‑he can try and put
words in my mouth if he so chooses, but the reality is we know what areas in
education we need to address, and we are working the best we can to address
them.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was not trying to
put words in the minister's mouth. He
was not being very clear about what he actually is working from at the present
time, and I was just endeavouring to have that clear.
It is not a socialist five‑year plan. It can be many kinds of five‑year
plans, corporate five‑year plans.
I understand the Lotteries Corporation has a running five‑year
plan. The Liberals are fully aware that
they have not been able to get anything past the '91 plan.
I do not know whether in fact there is a '92‑97 plan
or whether it is just something that is imagined. On that basis, it would seem that these plans
are revised and another year is tacked on.
It is done for capital purposes many times, for many different purposes,
and that is why I am asking the minister if he has such a revision.
If he has not completed it, it is fine to say he does not
have a revised plan on a five‑year basis in front of him at the present
time. He is working from a different
timetable right now, and that is fair ball.
Mr. Manness: The member for Dauphin makes a good
point. Certainly the strategic plan at
this point in time is being rewritten.
We are attempting to update it indicating aspects that we sense have
been completed since '91 and, as importantly of course, to redefine, given new
thrusts, but which still in themselves are not terribly far removed from some
of the significant planks that were put into place in '91. Yes, there is greater definition around some
of the reform issues that we are talking about, but they still more or less fit
into what we attempted to define with some certainty in 1991 for five years
out.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, and some of them might have been
accomplished already. For example, the
minister talked about college governance.
I do not know if there is another model contemplated, but obviously
there was a change made there, so that should now be written out of this plan
and of course new issues included in the plan.
That is really what we are talking about here.
I wanted to ask the minister about the SAIP program. That is the national test. It was raised earlier. Last year it was math, and the results came
down, and there was some controversy over how
* (2020)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said casually
when the results came out, but I will say for the record with more force right
now, I was not very happy with the results.
I looked into the methodologies.
I heard the criticism around the methodologies. I heard about some indications that a certain
skill set of learning was not in our curriculum. I looked into that and I found out that
students though that learned it in another study area, in geography‑‑people
that had taken geography seemed to do better than those who supposedly‑‑no,
was it the other way around? [interjection] That is right. If they studied it in geography they did it
in math. I looked into methodologies, I
looked into all the criticism of how it was that
Now, some people said‑‑I went and talked to
principals and they said, well, the reason we did not do well on the test was
because it had no value, my students would not study. I looked across the land and nowhere, no
province gave it value, so I have to believe that our students are more or less
homogeneous with other Canadian students and, therefore, I would have to factor
out that role.
I looked at it I thought in as dispassionate, as objective
a fashion as I could. I am sorry, I have
to come to the conclusion that we did not do particularly well, given though
when we looked at our students studying français in immersion and someone says,
well, the immersion students tend to be students whose parents are a little bit
more active and a little more involved, but even separating that out and going
onto the français side and using the same Manitoba curriculum, which more or
less was translated, I am led to believe, that still within the French milieu
the results were significantly better.
I guess this is what troubled me more than anything, that
when it came to doing basic mathematical functions like, to use an example, A
plus B divided by C multiplied by D, when you lay it out as a function, our
students did relatively well, average.
But you put the problem or you take those same computations in the
context of a problem where you have to comprehend, you have to read, and we
have talked and we have given a lot of focus today to this thing called problem
solving, and you put it in the context of a worded question where you have to
be able to read and write and comprehend, well, that is where we fell off the
scale.
Is it a math problem?
I do not know. Is it a curriculum
problem? I do not think so. Is it a comprehension or is it a literature
problem or a language arts problem? I am
beginning to think so and I am troubled by that greatly.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister covered off a lot of the
areas that were criticized from various quarters with regard to that test. So far as the curriculum covering actual
concepts in mathematics that were tested‑‑the minister said, well,
some of them were studied in other subjects like geography. I am not certain, I do not have the specific
examples, but I do know that teachers and students did approach me that there
were concepts that were part of our Grade 12 curriculum and this test was being
administered to Grade 11 students right across the country, our 17‑ and
16‑year olds, and therefore they would not be in Grade 12. They would not have taken those concepts and
therefore they could not possibly have been taught those concepts, and what
sense does it make to test them on them?
The minister may say, well, that shows that we are behind
or our curriculum is wrong. The point
is, and that is what I wanted to ask the minister, why would you participate in
a national test if you do not have a national standard, a national curriculum
for that particular test other than to tell you that you do not have a national
curriculum? I mean, what does it really
tell you? It is absolutely ridiculous to
test kids on concepts that are not part of the curriculum or that they are not
being taught at a particular level. It
does not serve any particular purpose.
It just frustrates everyone, demoralizes people, students and teachers
alike.
I just asked the minister, if he recognizes that certain
concepts were not being taught in that particular grade level, then why did
* (2025)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, quite easy, because
I did not talk to a Minister of Education who did not
indicate to me, well, you know, that test, there was one part of it that we do
not think our students covered either.
That was the call across the land.
I know one thing. We will never
get to the point where we want to go, if we are talking about some uniformity
standards across this country. We will
never get there unless we start. Was it
a perfect start? No.
The member talks about the teachers and students being
frustrated. I have not had any students
report to me as to their frustration.
Yes, I have had some teachers, and I have had some trustees. I am not going to blame and I never will
blame anybody. I mean, to me it is not
an issue of blame. To me, it is an issue
of learning from the result, trying to work more closely with the other
provinces, trying to determine whether or not we can work towards some common
curriculum by subject area, and ultimately being honest to our students and
letting them know where they stand vis‑à‑vis other students across
the land, nothing more. I am not looking
for alibis. Alibis are for losers.
Our students, in my view, gave it their best shot. I have to think that they did the best they
could. I am not down on the
students. All I am saying, though, is,
let us try and find some uniformity and be honest with them; let them know
where we stand vis‑à‑vis others; and, more importantly, let us in
this nation try to work towards some common areas of standards so that our
students know where they stand.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, the minister talks about being a
team player and so on. It is easy to say
he is being a team player, but he has to think about the impact of this on the
people that are most closely involved and the purpose of it. That is what I am trying to explore with the
minister.
The minister says, he had a part in developing the math
test. My point at the time was that, if
you had a part in making it, why did you not ensure that the parts that were
being applied to students in
Otherwise, it undermines the public education system, and
then I think that it leads to lack of confidence in the public education system
to a greater degree, perhaps, than is necessary, by the public, if the minister
is indeed playing into that kind of scenario.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wonder if the
member for Dauphin has delved into this to even know what part of the
curriculum we did not teach‑‑
Mr. Plohman: I talked to teachers.
* (2030)
Mr. Manness: Yes, and so they would have told him, what
particular area, because I can tell you, we were certainly mindful of the
criticism that the area dealing with graphs and charts was the only area that
our students did not have presentation, only that part that had not been taught
within the formal mathematics, yet its offset is being in geography.
The member may find it interesting, because he will not
find this from the teachers, but we have seen the notes, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. Our students did very well
in graphs and charts, better than they did on average in the rest of the other,
because they learned that in geography.
So the criticism is invalid. The
criticism is not valid. Unless the
member can tell me that there was another area of study that our students were
not provided for within the Manitoba‑made curriculum, then I say he is
using rhetoric, because we looked at this.
We were sensitive to it. So the
member is generalizing. He is saying
that our kids did not have access to this curriculum, and he is wrong.
Well, then he will prove me wrong if he shakes his
head. If he says I am wrong, well, then
he will prove me wrong, and he will show me what areas our students did not
have presented to them by way of Manitoba‑made curriculum.
Again, as I point out to him, our students did reasonably
well when it comes to basic math. That
was not the problem where we fell down.
It was in the problem‑solving side and where you can draw a
conclusion. It came from pure
comprehension. Of course, I pointed that
out to the trustees, I pointed it out to others, and I draw a stare. I draw a stare, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
because all of a sudden there is no convenient entity to blame.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, clearly the area of application and
knowledge in problem solving was identified as an area that was the problem,
and not one teacher said, well, we have not taught that or we are concerned
about this test because we have not been able to prepare our students for
application of knowledge in a problem‑solving situation. It was factual pieces of information that
they were concerned was not being taught in, I believe, algebra and geometry,
some concepts in those areas, and I cannot tell the minister now. This was a year and a half ago that I talked
to them about it, and I had raised this during the Estimates last year as well,
but I think it is important that the minister not generalize, as well, at this
point without having all of the information as to the subtleties of what might
have been on that test and what was precisely taught in that particular grade,
and so to refute it and say that is a generalization.
I think the issue of problem solving is one that is of deep
concern and, I think, one that I am surprised the minister has not identified
when he talks about his basics. If I am
wrong, he can perhaps tell me that is not his view of what constitutes basics,
but I think most people are talking about ability to problem solve, critical
thinking, those kinds of words to describe a basic for students in education
today. Yet the minister talks about
going back to the basics, and I just wonder whether in fact he defines basics
in a broader way than the traditional basics.
If so, what basics is he talking about.
As a result of this test, does the minister have a greater feeling for
the need to ensure that our students are able to apply knowledge in a problem‑solving
situation and to critically analyze data and apply the knowledge they have, or
is this something that he always did feel was part of the basic curriculum and
should be part of the basics in education today?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member says the
minister, meaning myself, talks about back to the basics. This minister has never once used those
terms. Never in a public format, never
in a private format, have I been quoted as saying, back to the basics. There have been a lot of headlines written, a
lot of people want to cast me as being enthralled with back to the basics. I have never ever said that, and I never
will, but I mean the member and others will want to, of course, forge me in
that mold, but that is fine.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know what terminology one
uses. I know that the traditional
partners today in my discussions with them are just scared to death, hate the
term and yet everybody is searching around for basically a term that captures
pure literacy so that individuals, regardless of the new technology coming in,
we can talk about critical thinking, we can talk about communication skills,
and we can talk about problem solving.
We can use any term we want, but unless you know the
meaning of the word, unless you can comprehend words put together in a
sentence, you are basically not literate, and you are not going to learn. You are not going to problem solve, and you
are not going to be able to do critical analysis, because you have to have a
foundation in which to do those things.
So if the member wants to move me back 50 years ago into a
back‑to‑basics person, fine, he can call me anything he wants. All I care about is literacy, nothing more,
so that an individual, when they are in grade‑‑well, whatever grade
they are in and, indeed, whether they graduate or whether they do not graduate,
whatever they do, but if they have the fire and the energy and they want to be
lifelong learners and they want to improve their lot by doing things on their
own, as more and more will be called to do in our society over the years to
come, at least they have the tools to do that.
The basis of all of that is literacy and language arts.
So if the member wants to know where my‑‑and I
am a math‑science type of person but, as I have said to others, my focus
purely is on language arts and the ability to read and write and communicate
and comprehend.
Mr. Plohman: I would agree with the minister that literacy
is a fundamental basic to all learning.
I wonder, though, if the minister is going to attempt in his reform to
qualify or to define the term or is he going to generally kind of stay away
from this kind of jargon that has been used, perhaps unfairly, to describe
either the minister or others who have talked about the basics as if it was
what was taught 30 years. And if it
unfairly describes that, then I would say, I agree that that is a simplistic
way of looking at it.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I find so
difficult, everybody agrees, but there is a mindset out there that you cannot
use the word "basic."
Now, I have heard the word foundation skills used. That is now beginning to become growingly
offensive to some. I have heard‑‑we
are trying to come up with a new term too so we do not offend anybody. But why is it that people in the education
community are the most offended? I guess
because it conjures up memory, learning by rote. I guess it just conjures something up so
negative to a lot of people, or is it something greater than that?
I have not been able to put my finger on that, quite
frankly, but there is just an incredible concern within the traditional
education community that the word basic not be used. Fine.
I do not care. I am trying to
find a better word, trying to reach out, but the reality is, it has to mean
foundation in the sense that you cannot do anything unless you have a foundation. So you better know by the time you are in
Grade 3 or 4, you better have a pretty fair understanding as to the principles
of mathematics, and you better have‑‑not that you have to be a
rocket scientist by the time you are in Grade 9. I mean, that is foolhardy.
I would love to see a system, and I am giving the member
some insight where a lot of students by the time they are in Senior 1 or Senior
2, is it really important that they take any math after that? It may not be, as long as they have good grounding
in math. But more importantly than math,
of course, in my view, is language arts because you have to be able to
comprehend.
* (2040)
Today I have questioned whether all the forces within the
public school system or even in the independent school system are being,
regardless of what your specialization is, whatever it is you are teaching
within the setting of the school, whether or not we are giving enough focus to
all the dimensions that lead to fuller comprehension, so, yes, that is my bias.
Mr. Plohman: Would the minister have any comments on his
view of what the basic‑‑I should not use the word now‑‑[interjection]
No, no, I was not going to use it in the form that the minister thinks in terms
of basics. I was going to use it in a
different way.
The kind of fundamental concern that the private sector has
with the public education system, an agenda that they might have, I would like
to get some insight into‑‑as a result of putting together this
reform plan and discussions the minister may have had, has had on an ongoing
basis with the private sector and so on‑‑what their motivation is,
what do they want in students? I really
do not like to hear people getting on to Peter Warren or other situations and
saying that the graduates coming out of school are illiterate, and they hired
this one person, the person was illiterate.
First of all, I kind of wonder why they hired the person in
the first place with the choice they have nowadays, the number of jobs versus
the number of people looking. Did they
perhaps hire a student who was not qualified academically, perhaps in a
different stream in high school completely than what was required? I just cannot fathom the idea of illiterates
looking for jobs that have a Grade 12 graduate certificate nowadays from the
university entrance program, for sure. I
would think perhaps not for the 04 program, I do not know. We have given them certificates, but surely
the employers know the difference of the kind of people and the kind of courses
that people have taken for jobs that they are hiring them. I cannot understand where we get that kind of
situation nowadays, employers saying there are illiterates coming looking for
jobs and have a Grade 12 diploma.
I do not know what they are really looking for in the criticism
of the public school system. It seems to
me that it is to their advantage to have critical thinkers, to have analytical
minds, to have people who will question and want to look behind something to
find the greater knowledge of why things are done a certain way and to question
and to propose alternatives that are better‑‑critical thinkers that
can analyze like that. I would not think
people who can do robotic tasks and produce widgets for employers. What is it that they are complaining about?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member hears the
complaints as well as I do. I am not
going to sit here for one moment and protect the business community or defend
the business community, because at times I do not really understand what it is
they are seeking either. But let me say
very clearly that I too am troubled in many respects with what the Grade 12
graduation certificate does not say. It
says basically today, in the minds of many, at least that are reporting to me,
that this student has been in the public school system for 12 years or 13
years. Some would say not a lot more.
So consequently the good‑faith public school model
that we have in place lends itself to a growing degree of criticism and is
almost hapless and helpless to defend itself, and that is unfortunate. Because many, virtually all, are graduating
without differentiation and, in fairness to them, are presenting their wares,
in other words their certificate of graduation and their place in our society,
having achieved, to the marketplace. The
marketplace is growingly upset because they sense some individuals are lacking
some shortage of achievement in the area of math, science, language, social
studies skills, the ability to read, write and communicate and to creatively
solve problems.
The great discomforting aspect to me is one I believe that
tends to be truer more often than I would like to see. Secondly, it is so unfair to that student who
has made this achievement in their own mind, presented their academic wares,
and are turned down or criticized because of the shortage, perceived and real.
Now, the business community comes along and they say, well,
we want a change. Well, good for
them. I mean, what has gone wrong in the
first place if something has gone wrong?
Well, the business community 25‑30 years ago began to
delegate. I mean, they were once pretty
vital partners in the community within the education area. But, of course, individuals like the member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and myself and many others, we graduated and we had
some higher learning and we convinced people that now if we went into education
it was in good hands. So the business
community said, well, we do not have to watch as carefully as we used to. Public education is in good hands.
Not indicating for a moment as to whether or not it was,
the fact is the world was changing, everybody was pulling away from everybody
except of course the teachers and the practitioners who were pulling away from
the public school system, and pushing more and more upon it, expecting it to be
all things to all people and be successful in doing it. All of a sudden, now it seems to be short in
some dimensions. Now the business
community says, well, they want change.
They want back in. They want it
righted. They do not know how to get
there though, and they never will, but you better believe they are going to
have influence on the say. So let us
understand then that they are going to have influence.
Are they going to rewrite the script as to what the public
school system is going to look like?
Absolutely not. Why should
they? I mean, the business community is
one player in the community of influence, but will they have influence? Yes, and maybe that is exactly what the
public school system needs again. It
needs the business community. It needs
the home. It needs the church. It needs the service groups. It needs everybody to take an interest in it
again, and when that happens your public school system again will grow, because
then no longer can the Minister of Education and/or the locally elected
trustees and powerful associations, whether they are trustees or teachers, have
the monopoly of influence. So I am not
troubled by it, but believe me I am not also carrying a business agenda with
respect to reform.
Mr. Plohman: First of all, I thank the minister for his
frankness on that. I think taken to
extreme we see some of the things that are happening in the United States with
corporate takeover of schools in some areas, actually managing the schools, and
directing to a large extent, as I understand it, even what is being taught in
the schools, charging tuition fees and so on.
* (2050)
Is this the kind of competition that the minister would
like to see developed? He did say on
several occasions in different forums and here at the table that competition,
he believes, is good, keeps everybody on their toes. It is going to be a positive thing, in his
view, for the public education system too, but he talks about doing that in the
public domain primarily, as I understand it.
I just want to ask the minister whether he sees this moving
towards a kind of corporate involvement in the public school system in any way,
or does he feel that there is absolutely no way that should be an avenue that
should be pursued?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not see that
type of model coming in here into
I think if we do that and we reach out to everybody to once
again claim the public school system as part of its own, just not in words but
indeed by actions, and we break some of the monopolies that exist around it, we
will end up with a better system. If we
do not do that, then the model that the member is talking about in the
I have said this many times, and I do not ask the members
to accept it‑‑because I say it is the main reason I do not ask them
to accept it‑‑but education is power and the great opportunity for
so many of our people from lesser advantaged classes or locations is always
through the public school system, but to the extent that the level it provides
is in any way average or lower, then I say that the great opportunity we talk
about just is not there.
The greatest opportunity for those disadvantaged in our
society is when the public school system, the standards around it, free access
to it, are at the very highest levels.
That is then when you can make meaningfully the statement of equal
opportunity for all and for anybody in the space of a generation to pull
themselves from below average economic status to something average or
above. Indeed, that is the foundation of
our system. That is why we believe in
it, but to give that common effect we had better make it as high quality as
possible.
Mr. Plohman: It is an interesting discussion about the
system resting on its laurels. I do not
know whether that is because governments have not led sufficiently.
If you look at this government in the past few years, the
Curriculum branch, for example, which should be developing and working with
teachers, with parents, with school boards, with students, with all the partners
in education to develop and update curriculum, has been decimated by the
government over the last few years. So
when the minister talks about, the system cannot rest on its laurels, I mean,
who is really resting on their laurels here?
What has really been happening?
Would the minister say, would he fault his own government for perhaps
not taking enough initiative in this area over the last number of years and in
fact failing in that particular role?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, most definitely
not. I do not fault the government, and
I do not fault anybody particularly. I
do know that my statements, per
The member may like to try and corner me to suggest that
our government has not taken a lead. I
do not accept that. A lot of the work
that my predecessors have done with respect to review are going to be
meaningfully used with respect to the reform, and it is all in place.
I really do not think we are following anybody in the
nation. I have read all of or at least
most of what has happened in other places.
I have seen the gyrations
Mr. Plohman: It was, you mean, or is?
Mr. Manness: No, is.
We of course are going to want to work closer with Alberta
and Saskatchewan to the extent they want to work, and I think they do,
together, because there is no use reinventing all of this, particularly in your‑‑what
is the word? You cannot use the word
"basics" any more‑‑foundation and skill area,
fundamental. So we are trying to do it.
No, I will not cast any blame on the government. I think we are where we should be, but we have
to move the pace forward a little more quickly, and we plan to do that.
I just may say, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that in discussion
with the stakeholders I find it so interesting that when they are talking about
back to the basics they are not using the word basics. The most interesting part of the discussion
that you would have with an educator today, or anybody for that matter, when
you talk about the past is, they cannot talk about the past without using the
word basic. They will use another word. As sure as I am sitting here, what they will
say parenthetically is, well, I mean, like the old basic, or they will use the
word "basic." It will come up
almost in every third sentence. You
cannot get away from talking education today without using the term, even if
you do not want to. Even if you want to
wash your own mouth out in using it, you end up using it.
Mr. Plohman: That is right. People will talk about the most important
things as being basic. They may not be
the same things as what we would call the traditional basics, but they are
fundamental to today. So they will say,
these are basic things that we must concentrate on. I do not have a problem using that word as
long as what we are defining is the modern‑day basics and not just what was
viewed as the three Rs or whatever it was in previous years.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will have to recess this section of Supply
to go to the Chamber for a vote, and we will reconvene after the vote.
The committee recessed
at 8:59 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
9:15 p.m.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Order, please. We will now resume consideration of the Estimates
of the Department of Education and Training.
We are on line 1.(c)(1).
Mr. Plohman: Well, we are not going to, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, get into too much more, I think, here. There is lots of time in the departmental
areas to discuss some of these issues that we are discussing now as we get into
the changes in the department and some of the branches of the department, but I
just wanted to ask one or two more questions following on what we were
discussing before, and that is whether the minister could give some idea about,
shed some light as to, what he feels the role or impact of so‑called
competition in the public school system is supposed to have on the quality of
the service that is being provided?
It seems to me that a combination of things are taking
place, unless you are talking about resting on their laurels at the present,
and they can no longer rest on their laurels.
I asked him whether in fact maybe that could not be blamed somewhat on
the department not showing leadership and, as a matter of fact, reducing staff
in key areas, in curriculum, for example.
So the minister is saying we have to get on with changes in a more rapid
way than has been customary in the past, but then he says that there has to be
some competition built in. With cuts and
funding that have taken place and so on, I just wanted to know whether he
thinks that the system is not trying hard enough, or the people in the system,
to do the best job they can with what they have, with the resources that they
have, which are limited and dwindling in many cases.
What is it that the competition is going to do to enhance
educational opportunities in the public education system?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Depu