Hon Janet Ecker, Minister of
Education
Ms Nancy Naylor, director, education finance branch, Ministry of
Education
Mr Aryeh Gitterman, director, policy and program branch, Ministry
of Education
Ms Sue Herbert, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Education
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
ESTIMATES
Chair /
Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James
ND)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London L)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Clerk pro tem/ Greffière par intérim
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer,
Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1541 in room 228.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
The Vice-Chair (Mr
Alvin Curling): Can we get the standing committee on
estimates for education on the road? Let me just tell you the
remaining time left in the rotation. The government has 18
minutes left of their time and then the minister will respond for
30 minutes. Then we can go to our 20-minute rotation thereafter,
starting with the official opposition. On the government side,
whom do we have leading the charge here?
Mr Joseph N. Tascona
(Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Myself. Minister, research,
including the government's own Mustard-McCain study, shows that
early years and the early grades are extremely important to a
child's intellectual and emotional development. What are you
doing to support children's education in the early grades, from
junior kindergarten to grade 3 specifically?
Hon Janet Ecker
(Minister of Education): Thank you very much, Mr
Tascona, for a very important question. The work of Fraser
Mustard, while primarily focused on pre-school children,
certainly makes the argument that the early years in the
education system are extremely important. That's why we continue
to fund junior kindergarten or alternative programs for all
school boards, and 70 boards do provide junior kindergarten.
Those two that don't provide junior kindergarten provide
alternative programming for that age group, which we fund.
We've also moved in our
recent legislation this spring, and with an addition of $101
million, to bring down class size in the junior grades, JK to
grade 3, and we're asking boards to report on the success of that
so we can assess whether it is being successful and if further
changes need to be made.
We've also increased
resources by $70 million for special reading literacy work at the
kindergarten to grade 3 level. That includes training teachers,
for example, to be more aware, to be able to identify, for
example, students who are having learning challenges at earlier
years and supports to deal with them.
Those are some of the steps
we're taking. I'm looking forward to working with Minister
Marland and my other colleagues as we continue to move forward on
Fraser Mustard and the commitments we've made in this area.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre): Minister, we've heard a number of
boards complaining about the fact that they do not have enough
resources to buy textbooks. Last April, I believe it was, or
maybe March, I spoke to a law class at Cameron Heights Collegiate
in Kitchener and I asked the students about this. Some of the
students readily indicated that many of the teachers they have
don't use the textbooks they have now. That's one question I'd
like you to comment on.
I have another one. The
Waterloo Region District School Board has recently settled with
the high school teachers. They gave them an increase of 4.7%,
which I have no objection to. If they've got the money, fine. One
of the explanations that came out in the Kitchener-Waterloo
Record, the newspaper for the area, indicated that they took the
money to do this from other areas, one of which was mentioned as
being textbooks. That's the second point.
The third point is that many
of the teachers have indicated that they do not have manuals for
the new textbooks under the new curriculum. It's my understanding
that the school boards have been granted funding for those
manuals.
I wonder if you could respond
to those three points, please.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: One of the reasons that we have standards, for
example, on workload for teachers and fund according to that and
require boards to report on where the money goes and how it is
used is to take steps where money is being used inappropriately.
One of the things we had seen before was that the workload
standard, the instructional time standard of four hours and 10
minutes a day for secondary teachers, had not been met in some
boards and they had said quite publicly they were using textbook
money to subsidize a lower workload for the teachers.
That's one of the reasons we
set the standard for instructional time, to clearly ensure that
the money that was being used to subsidize the lower workload
standard was remaining in the system to be used for the purposes
it had been given to boards, for example for textbooks.
So boards get money for
textbooks in a number of ways, first of all through the basic
grants that they get. There is allocation, both elementary and
secondary, for textbooks and learning materials. Second,
recognizing the incredible need for new materials with the new
curriculum, we've put specially targeted money on top of the
regular money, if you will, for that. So, for example, for
elementary teachers there was an initial $100 million that was put in on top of the
regular amount specifically targeted to new learning resources.
Likewise for 9, 10, and again for 11, 12, we are putting in
additional monies on top of that for learning materials.
Some trustees are elected to
make decisions on behalf of their community. If they are choosing
to use the parts of the foundation grant for teacher wages,
depending on how-I mean, we take a look at their annual reports
that they put in and a number of things. We'll be taking a look
at those kinds of issues.
I find it ironical that a
board that would say, "We're going to take money designed for new
textbooks and use it for another purpose," would then come back
and say to the ministry, "We want to criticize you for not giving
money to our teachers for new textbooks." We've certainly heard
the message about more resources for new curriculum. That's why
we did it, that's why we continue to provide further new training
and the supports, because I think those materials help teachers
in the classroom to teach the new curriculum.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Do the boards in fact have that money for
the manuals that go along with the textbooks? It's my
understanding they do.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We can provide you with detailed information on
that, but we have given new money to boards precisely for the
purchase of new materials for the curriculum.
Mr Frank Mazzilli
(London-Fanshawe): Minister, certainly one does not want
to bring American politics into this, but I couldn't help but
watch the presidential debate last night on the education
portion. Both Al Gore and George Bush seemed to agree when it
came to testing our children to make sure that they're not left
behind. I was shocked that the American liberals-Al Gore stands
for mandatory ongoing teacher testing. So I'm shocked that the
Ontario Liberals object to this sort of testing to make sure that
our professionals are up to date with current standards.
1550
But in relation to student
testing and the new curriculum, which was also an enormous part
of the debate, can you explain the grades 11 and 12 curriculum in
relation to the global economy? Obviously, the Americans are in
this game of education for the economy. They've always understood
that they need a very strong economy and that there's growth with
having a well-educated workforce, and they have standards in
curriculum and teacher testing. Can you explain the grades 11 and
12 curriculum to us, please?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Certainly. First of all, yes, I think it is
interesting to note that in many jurisdictions around the world,
the challenge of how we have more or how we have better teaching
excellence, if you will-not to imply that there aren't many
excellent teachers there in our systems today, but the challenge
of increasing excellence, keeping teachers as up to date as
possible, is not unique to Ontario. Indeed, for example, on
Tuesday, as the members will know, when I was at the Council of
Ministers of Education of Canada, my colleague from Nova Scotia
had just announced a mandatory recertification-professional
development initiative that they're starting. You can see it in
the United States as well.
We are not unique or somehow
not doing what other jurisdictions are doing when we are bringing
in a comprehensive teacher-testing program designed to make sure
that all of our teachers are as up to date as possible. I share
your surprise that the opposition parties, despite what's
happening around the world, would not share our view on that.
On the grades 11 and 12
curriculum, two things: first of all, I think it's important to
recognize that we didn't simply take five years of high school
and squash them into four. We took 13 years of schooling and
completely restructured it from kindergarten to grade 12, to be
consistent with what's happening in other jurisdictions but also
to make sure that from kindergarten to grade 12 our students are
getting the information, the knowledge that they need in order to
go out wherever their career will take them and compete with the
Americans or the English or the Australians or whoever, so that
they've got the best chance to compete with the best of the world
and succeed, as they certainly can.
When that curriculum was
designed, we went to not only many, many educators, teachers,
subject experts, but also employers, universities, colleges,
apprenticeship training programs and asked, "What is it that
students need to succeed in your world when they walk out with
that piece of paper in their hand that says they went through
high school?"
The grades 11 and 12
curriculum very much reflects the advice that we heard on that,
so it is targeted to give students choices around where they
think they might end up. It might well be university, but the
majority of our students do not go to university; they go either
directly into the workforce or to college or other kinds of
training and apprenticeship programs. That is reflected in the
choices that students have.
As I mentioned earlier, we
put in more resources to help with the new materials required for
grades 11 and 12. The other thing that we did, and certainly
again responding to some of the concerns we heard from teachers
that the curriculum was a big chunk to digest and get ready for,
the grade 11 curriculum is out over a year ahead of when it will
start to be brought into high school. The grade 12 curriculum is
out a full two years ahead of when it will be coming in because
we want to make sure that everyone in the system has the chance
to get ready as best they can for our students, especially for
those last two crucial years in high school.
Mr R. Gary Stewart
(Peterborough): My question is about accountability for
the boards of this province. In the last few months I've been
fairly involved with looking at budgets, both of two or three
years past and one of the current ones, as well as receiving a
lot of calls from parents, especially in the lower grades,
kindergarten, grades 1 and 2, where there are 28 and 30 in the
classes. Parents are very concerned about that where they can't
get any assistance, TAs, whatever, for the teachers.
Also, in looking at those budgets, I looked, as Mr
Wettlaufer has said, at where funds are taken out of textbooks
and supplies and put into other areas, they're taken out of
maintenance and put into other areas, and yet some of the boards
seem to be telling the people, "No, we can't switch from envelope
to envelope." I know there are some ways you can and some ways
you can't, but they're telling them, "No, you can't do it,
period." The bottom line is, "We do not have any money, so go and
blame everybody you possibly can except me, the board."
I would like to know how we
can initiate audits, whether it be on a random basis or a
periodic basis-and I'm not talking about an audit where you're
going to say, "We will be there in six months to do an audit."
I'm talking about an audit, "We will be there tomorrow morning to
audit your books," my point being because I want to know whether
they're getting the money and it's not going to the right place.
If they're not getting money, then I am the first one to fight on
their behalf. But it leaves me a little bit short of
understanding when I see in black and white what is happening
regarding budgets and they then say, "Oh no, we don't have money
for textbooks, we don't have money for supplies, we don't have
money for Eas." I believe some of the kids, especially in the
junior grades, are falling through the cracks. So getting back to
accountability, audit, how do we access it?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Stewart. Having been on
the receiving end when you were fighting for your community, I
want to answer this question well because I don't want to have to
go through that again.
It's a very good question.
Yes, there are certain envelopes that we do envelope, I guess, to
say that, and for good reason, because we'd heard from teachers
and parents that they disagreed strongly about what was happening
to those resources in some boards. Again, not all boards are the
same. Many make very excellent decisions about use of their money
and some seem to have challenges in making those decisions.
For example, special
education money: a school board cannot take a special education
dollar and spend it outside of special education. They can
certainly top up, as many boards do. We encourage boards to find
administrative savings in non-classroom expenditures and use
those savings-the ministry doesn't claw them back; the board can
keep that money-in classroom funds. Many do so in many areas and
have found savings in administration and continue to do that and
look for ways-whether it's bus transportation, whether it's
consortium purchasing, a whole range of areas-to put that money
back into the classroom.
We do envelope some, and I
think with good reason. We envelope classroom money, because one
of the stated goals of our funding reform, before we were elected
in 1995 and again in 1999, was to put more priority of education
dollars in classrooms as opposed to administration. We'd seen
over the past many years that education property taxes had gone
up some 120%-money going into the system had gone up in a 10-year
period-but I've got to tell you I didn't ever meet a teacher or a
student who'd seen that kind of increase in their resources in
the classroom. The reason was because the biggest majority of
that money was being siphoned into administrative, non-classroom
purposes.
We are shifting that. We're
now up to 65% of the dollars that are out there in-classroom. It
works out to about $700 million more than was there before. But
simply handing out that money to a board I don't think ends our
responsibility, because more accountability in what's happening
with that money is part of that.
We are moving forward to
have, I guess the term is, board report cards. What that will
include when this is complete is a sort of board financial
profile so parents and taxpayers and teachers will be able to see
where all the money is going in a board. We are looking at how we
can then give them data to best compare their boards against
other boards. A school board might take textbook money and use it
for some other purpose in the classroom, for example, and parents
might be quite happy with that. The school council may well have
been part of that-
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. That ends the time, Mr
Stewart. You have 30 minutes in which to respond. You can take as
much time as you want but don't take over 30 minutes. You can
also take less.
1600
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Actually, I will
just finish Mr Stewart's answer-to give the parents information
so they can make comparisons between boards, because there may
well be priority decisions they agree with: the school board and
the trustees taking money from this priority in the classroom and
putting it in that priority in the classroom. They elect trustees
and that would be a legitimate exercise for them to do.
The other thing through Bill
74, the Education Accountability Act, is that we do have
authority. If we have a board that is, say, taking money for
lower class size and cashing the cheque but not using that money
to have lower classes, and if the parents wish to come forward
and say they question what that board is doing and they don't
think the report the board is giving to the government is an
accurate reflection of what's happening in classrooms, we have
the ability to investigate, to take a look, and if there is a
problem, to fix that, to move forward on that. So I think that's
very important.
Just to touch on some of the
points that have been made previously, just to wrap up, I think
it's important to state again that what the government is
attempting to achieve is to improve student achievement in the
system and to make sure that our young people are in a very
strong position to get what they need from the education system,
to get the tools, the knowledge, the ability they need to
succeed, not only academically, not only in the work world, but
also as successful citizens in the community.
To boil that down, as you've heard me do that, more
accountability and better quality are the two watchwords we use
to guide all of our reforms. It starts with how we fund
education. We've moved to a system that is equitable, that is
fair, that does not have a child having to rely on whether they
are living in a rich community or a poor community to have
appropriate monies being spent on their education.
We have increased money to
education. Again, some of our critics like to say, "Oh, there's
been $1 billion or $2 billion"-depending on which day of the week
you're talking to them-"cut out of education." When we first
assumed government, there was $12.9 billion in our education
system; today it's $13.5 billion, and more of that is in
classrooms, so we think that's extremely important. It's a fair
way, it's an equitable way and a more stable way for boards to
understand and be able to predict the resources they have.
One of the criticisms from
some of our critics is that on the one hand they like to say that
our funding is somehow a cookie-cutter approach and then in the
same breath say, "Well, we're disadvantaged because our board
doesn't get as much money as the next board." Despite the illogic
of holding those thoughts at the same time, the funding is
designed deliberately to recognize unique needs of boards. So
there is a foundation grant, where there are basic costs of
education that are common to all students, that goes to every
board regardless of where the students live.
On top of that are nine
special-purpose grants which offer additional funding to meet
various costs and needs, and there are significant differences.
For example, the Toronto school board gets some 40% of all the
money for English as a second language. Not surprisingly, the
Toronto board has one of the higher immigration populations and
therefore the highest ESL need. We have other boards that would
get much more money for rural issues such as transportation than
an urban board, again because those distances that those boards
face are quite significant in terms of cost, so we recognize that
in the grants that boards get.
There are special education
grants; language learning opportunities which basically are
designed to reflect the needs of the population, for example,
inner-city students' needs; adult education; teacher
compensation; early learning; and transportation. All of those
are additional monies on top of the foundation grant for
boards.
The pupil accommodation grant
is the money that goes to school boards to provide the
maintenance, operation and building of new schools. I think it's
a very important grant. One of the assumptions, one of the
foundations of this money, is that we believe boards should
continue to have the responsibility of planning effective
accommodation for their students. It's not a new responsibility
for them. The way they get the money gives them the tools they
need to make longer-term plans and to spend their dollars quite
effectively. What we're doing now is asking school boards, under
the accountability framework, to provide information to us on,
first, how well the funding is working for accommodation, and
second, what their long-term plans and needs are so that we can
make sure that we are funding the appropriate needs in
accommodation out there, building new schools, renovating
schools, eliminating portables, leasing existing schools, all of
those very important priorities.
The new way to fund on the
accommodation side is giving boards something they've never had
before. Rather than having to line up in the queue and compete
for capital grants every year, they can actually predict the
revenue flow they're going to get on this. They can begin new
school construction when they need to do so, and even though that
funding has only been in place for two years, we're starting to
see very quickly the benefits of that. We're reducing the number
of portable classrooms, for example, by 1,250. This is a
reduction of more than 9% as schools are starting to catch up on
the building in the new growth communities. That's extremely
important. What we've seen in the last five years is that school
boards have built some 214 new schools and undertaken 193
additions or major renovations.
As I mentioned earlier,
classroom funding remains, and will continue to be, the priority
for where we want to put the dollars. Again, our goal here is
improving student achievement. We know we can help do that if we
keep the priority for the money in the classroom. As I mentioned,
not only is there more money for education overall,
province-wide, there is also $700 million more of that money in
the classroom-again, clearly one of our stated objectives. As I
said, that's more than 65% of operating funding in 2000-01 that
is actually going into classroom.
The question has been raised
about support for the new curriculum. It is a legitimate question
in a couple of ways. First of all, now that the new curriculum is
out there, all 12 years of it-and it represents an incredible
amount of work by an incredible number of experts and
teachers-the question now is, how do we ensure that we will be
teaching and learning, if you will, better. So we are taking
steps, for example, in a number of these areas.
One of the concerns is that
it is a more rigorous curriculum and some students may be having
some difficulty with it, so we are bringing in $150 million in
funding to support the implementation of secondary school reform,
which includes not only the textbooks and training for teachers
but more curriculum and resource materials to support those
teachers, guides to help the teachers achieve standardized
grading, implementation of the new report card and remediation
programs for students who need that extra help. The $150 million
was a previous commitment which is actually out there in the
system, and then in the grant regulation, the funding for this
current school year, we provided another $25 million to help
grade 7, 8, 9 and 10 students improve their literacy skills and
meet the standard of the new grade 10 literacy test.
Also, school boards received
monies for what we call crossover courses so that students can
change streams. I mentioned in high school that they can choose
courses based on their
destination: university, college, workplace, for example. We also
have courses so they can change, cross over from stream to
stream, because that is a major decision for a young person.
1610
There's $64 million that
helps support the teacher adviser program, which is an assistance
to students not only on the career-subject-course selection
process but also on the remediation side.
In February we released the
second $30-million investment in textbooks for just the grade 10
students, for example. So we're continuing to take those kinds of
steps.
Again, through the new high
school program, I think it's important to note that the emphasis
remains on reading, writing, math, science and technology.
I mentioned earlier in the
questions that we had introduced the new curriculum for grades 11
and 12. I think, though, it bears repeating that grade 11 is out
over a year ahead of when it will be coming into effect. Grade 12
is two years ahead. This will hopefully provide teachers and
school boards with more lead time to prepare for that new
curriculum.
We also certainly heard the
concerns teachers had about the need for more training. That's
why this past summer some 9,500 teachers took part in what we
called Summer Institutes on the new curriculum. I think it's
important to note as well, because sometimes it gets lost in the
media headlines, that the reason those institutes exist is
because of the co-operation and the work between the teachers'
federations and the ministry. They are jointly sponsored by the
Ministry of Education and the Ontario Teachers' Federation. We
fund them so that teachers don't have to pay for them. They were
oversubscribed last summer. We doubled the spaces and they were
oversubscribed again this summer. We're trying to figure out how
we can double or triple it, or however it is, to make it bigger
next summer. They have been a very popular support for teachers,
whether elementary or secondary.
Again, hearing the concerns
about making sure that children get off to a good start with
literacy and numeracy skills, we have the additional $70 million
targeted specifically for that purpose at junior kindergarten to
grade 3.
We've talked a lot at this
committee about special education. It is a very important
priority. We made a commitment to protect funding for vulnerable
children who need special-needs funding. As I mentioned, we have
indeed done that. Boards must spend special-needs money on
special-needs students, and many boards spend more than that on
their students because they have found savings in other areas and
also because they see it as a priority. We are spending $1.3
billion this school year. That is a 12% increase over last year.
That also represents the third year in a row that we've increased
money for special needs.
We remain committed to what
I'll call a two-part special education grant. This is something
that I know there's been a great deal of confusion about and it's
something that we're working on to ensure that boards and board
staff and teachers appreciate what that means. Today, one of the
members of the opposition parties shared a letter with me that
had been written to a parent that basically said, "Little Johnny
doesn't qualify for ISA funding"-the intensive support amount
funding-"so despite the fact that he has all of these other
disabilities, gee, so sorry, we can't help him." That is
absolutely wrong, because the reason that school boards receive
special-needs funding in a flexible way, what they call the SEPPA
grant, is so that they can indeed deal with little Johnny or
little Mary or little Sally, whether it's a learning disability
or another kind of challenge. They have the flexibility to deal
with what that young person, that child, needs to have an
education.
We have heard a number of
recommendations over this past year from school boards and
parents of special-needs children. I have a specific advisory
committee of individuals who represent special-needs children
across the province who have given excellent advice. We took a
number of those steps this year in terms of increasing monies, in
terms of improving the process, and we will continue to take
those steps. The reason we said we were going to have a
three-year process to do this-I'm the first one to recognize that
more work needs to be done to make sure that money flows the way
it should and is being used as well as it can be.
We recognize the need to
reduce process in submitting ISA claims, and we're prepared to
continue the work to make this a more regular funding cycle for
boards, to move away from all boards having to submit annual
claims about all the students they believe are eligible. We want
a more routine audit approach where the ministry reviews some
boards on a multi-year rather than an annual cycle. One step
builds on the fact that over the past three years some boards
have developed effective ways to organize the work required for a
successful ISA claim process. We are going to continue to work
with boards to find good practices. While we want to reduce
administrative effort, at the same time we want to make sure that
the accountability remains there so that this money is going to
those students and is going in a way that best helps them;
through individual education plans, for example, to plan what a
student needs each year.
There are many other
approaches that we're working on. We're continuing to work with
school boards and other members of the special-needs community to
improve the way this money flows to make sure that the increased
resources are doing the job that they should be doing. As I think
I mentioned earlier, we're working to develop province-wide
standards for the individual educational plans for each student,
and also over the next two years we're establishing program
standards to ensure that students with special needs receive a
quality education from the boards, so that the boards know the
kinds of things they should have in place for high-quality
programs and services, whatever a child's exceptionality might
be.
One of the other issues that has come up has to do
with our efforts to keep the public informed, to communicate with
the voters about what it is we do. I take it personally, frankly.
I see it very much as part of accountability for me and my
colleagues as a government to report on a regular basis to
voters. Part of that accountability is ensuring that the public
knows exactly what is happening in education. We have a
responsibility to provide parents and taxpayers with the
information they need to become full partners. We are indeed
doing that. We've introduced long-overdue comprehensive reforms.
One of the things I've heard consistently from parents is the
need and the request for more information. We continue to get
many phone calls and e-mails and correspondence asking for more.
We're undertaking to continue to do that.
The expenditures we discussed
last week on this reflect the extent of our commitment for spring
and fall information campaigns. The ministry follows the
directives specified by Management Board Secretariat for doing
these kinds of things, because again I believe that
accountability is not just for school boards and all those within
school boards, but also for the government.
One of the other issues I
want to touch on again is instructional time, the workload
standard. We think that was very much part of the standards we
said we would be setting for the education system. Province-wide
standards for the amount of time teachers spend teaching in the
classroom were set first in 1997. We moved our teachers closer to
the national average for teaching time in Canada so that our
secondary teachers are teaching at least four hours and 10
minutes a day. It's a board-wide average, which I think is
important to note, because we continue to believe that teachers'
responsibilities and workloads may well vary within a school and
we believe it's important for the boards to have the flexibility,
however they work it out with their particular bargaining unit,
to make those decisions. The Education Accountability Act
restates instruction time in terms of course loads and credit
courses, which is a common way to do teachers' timetables. We ask
boards to average that across the school board and to report on
that.
It's important to recognize
two things: first of all that the instructional time standards
certainly recognize, for the purposes of instructional time,
credit courses, ESL or ALF courses, which is the French
equivalent, special education programs, remedial courses, the
teacher adviser program. All of those can be included as part of
the calculation on instructional time standards. The legislation
permits flexibility on a board-wide basis and within each school
by allowing differences among schools and teachers as to the
number of courses a school or an individual teacher may well be
allocated.
1620
There are a variety of models
that may be used to achieve that. It's something, as I said, that
boards and unions have the flexibility to work out. We do require
each board to report on the success of meeting those standards.
With some of the models we understand some boards have or are
bringing in, teachers may teach four credits in one semester and
three in each of the next three semesters, so that would be one
semester every second year; some teachers teach half-credit
courses. Some schools have used team teaching approaches of
various kinds to take advantage of the different expertise of
teachers. Some teachers may teach one or more sections of a
course that has been divided into modules. Again, depending on
the course, this is something that some believe works well. So
that flexibility is there.
The other thing I want to
stress is if that particular workload standard means for a
particular board that they're somehow saving money, that is money
the board has. It remains in that board's budget.
Second, one of the concerns
we had heard was that the instructional time standard may well
have an impact. One of the criticisms was that it might have an
impact on the number of jobs of teachers, and that's one of the
reasons we invested the $263 million to help minimize any
potential job loss, because that $263 million for smaller
classes-basically, smaller classes mean more teachers. We hoped
that would help to address the concern we had heard. The other
reason we're certainly interested in doing it is because class
size, as we know, continues to remain an important indicator for
parents and teachers, so while we've taken significant steps in
that area, we recognize that more may need to be done.
Combined grades is an issue
that we've heard from many teachers in the elementary section.
Certainly combined grades have been around since the first
one-room schoolhouse, but with the new curriculum it is much more
difficult, more challenging for a teacher. We've been working
with the curriculum implementation partnership to develop
strategies and supports for teachers. Again, that has been
working very well, with the support of not only the faculties of
ed and the teachers' federation, which are two of our partners on
that, and we're working to provide supports for teachers. We've
invested more money to do that: for example, $2.6 million in this
school year for workshops on combined grades; a resource manual
of best practices and strategies for classroom management and
lesson planning; sample models of combined-grade curriculum
implementation. All of these are helping teachers deliver courses
like science and technology especially, two of the subjects
teachers told us presented the greatest challenge in combined
grades.
The other thing that's
interesting to note is that early data-and again, this is data
that we request from boards-actually is showing that the number
of combined grades has decreased in all regions of the province
over the past three years. We think that's a very good trend.
Just to wind up on teacher
testing, as I said earlier-and again, our critics like to say
every education reform we take is somehow an attack on teachers,
which distresses me greatly, because that kind of constant
criticism and refrain is one of the reasons teachers feel like
they're always under attack-the teacher testing program is
designed to ensure that
the teaching profession can be as up to date as possible, that
all teachers are going to have the up-to-date knowledge, skills
and training they require. There are many teachers out there who,
any chance they get, are upgrading their quality and their
skills. I suspect they're not even going to notice this, because
they're already out there doing it. But we want to make sure that
all of our teachers are able to do that.
So the steps we've
implemented, for example-we announced the framework in May, and
again, this was after many months of consultation with all our
education partners-we want to support new teachers entering the
profession, as well as established teachers. The program will be
multi-faceted, if you will. As many members may have heard me
say, this is not the teacher testing program Earl Manners said it
would be-sorry, Mark-this is the teacher testing program we said
we were going to introduce.
Interjection.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'd be glad to send the member a copy of the
framework we announced in May.
The first step this fall was
the new language proficiency requirement. New applicants to the
teaching profession, those who have been trained outside Ontario
in a language other than English or French, will have to pass a
language proficiency test before they receive certification.
The other steps are going to
be to have a qualifying test for new entrants to the profession
after they've come through teachers' college, similar, as I
describe it, to a lawyer's bar exam, to make sure they have the
knowledge and skills they need before they get into the
profession. We want to have an internship for new teachers, much
like what physicians have, to get young teachers off to the best
start.
We're introducing standards
for teacher performance evaluation to make sure all school boards
and principals are undertaking their responsibilities in teacher
evaluation and assessment in the appropriate way. We are also
going to have-and this is work we are doing now with our
education partners-more quality assurance review processes on a
school-by-school basis. Again, if we have problems in a school we
need to take the steps to fix that, and part of this program will
allow us to do that.
There is no question that
this is a major reform initiative. We certainly understand that.
We also recognize that we did a lot in a short period of time, in
the last mandate, that has asked a lot from our education
partners. We have slowed down in this mandate to recognize that,
but at the same time we are going to continue to move forward
with the commitments we made.
I want to continue to ask for
the best advice I can receive from our partners on how best to
implement those commitments. I should say that advice has been
very helpful on many initiatives, and I will continue to seek it.
I know they will continue to offer it in a number of different
ways. As everyone knows, they don't pull their punches.
I wish to continue to move
forward on doing the things we said we would do for our kids, so
they will have the best education they possibly can.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Minister. We'll start the
20-minute rotation now with the official opposition.
Mr Gerard Kennedy
(Parkdale-High Park): I appreciate this opportunity,
Minister, and having heard some of your answers, I'd like to go
back to some of them.
In general, in your opening
statement, you offered us a discussion of the big picture, and
I'd like to say, with all due respect that it's severely
misleading. When you talked about the big picture, you said there
were more resources. I want to draw your attention to the very
basic figures on funding education in Ontario.
In 1995-96, with inflation
included, just inflation, spending on education was $14.7
billion. If you want to compare the spending when you came into
office with spending today, that's what it would be in
present-day dollars. If you also include the additional number of
kids, the enrolment, if you put that in, then the equivalent to
1995-96 spending is $15.17 billion.
Minister, you are telling us
and the parents and students of this province that you value
them. You say that you do in a lot of your advertising, and yet
your actual comparable funding is something on the order of $13.4
billion. So you are actually spending about $918 less per student
when inflation and enrolment are factored in.
Just to make it more
relevant, in places like, let's say, Waterloo, that's $759 less
per student. So when Mr Wettlaufer goes to look for answers, he
should look on his desk, because his government has made that
possible. In Thames Valley, in London, it's $536 less per
student. The member opposite, Mr Mazzilli, is in agreement with
that, I guess. But it would be unfortunate if that was the case.
Minister, they need some straight talk and some straight answers
from you.
1630
I want to draw your attention
to one other thing before I ask for your response to this. You've
said to the people of this province in the last few minutes, and
you've said it many times before, that you cut the money out of
things they didn't need. I challenge you to table comparable
categories-in other words, you changed the categories in 1997-and
give the figures that allow the public, the people of this
province, to see where you've cut the money from. Give us the
exact categories that were there in 1995 or give us the 1995
categories in comparison to what you have today, because I want
to offer you some possible comparisons and I want to hear from
you on them.
One line that exists that
looks to me to be the same in your 1995 figures as it is today is
board administration and governance. You've talked a lot about
board administration and governance. Your government certainly
did when they said they were going to bring in the new funding
formula. In point of fact, the total spending on board
administration and governance after 10 years is only down 10%. That's all it's
down. In other words, cuts to board administration and
governance, after your mighty effort, are only 4% of the money
you've cut out of the school system-4%. Only four cents on the
dollar has come out of board administration. So the question for
the people of the province is, where is the money coming from?
Where are the cuts coming from?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'd be happy to answer your question, Mr
Kennedy.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I'm going to give you these figures
because-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: You've got some fundamental errors in your
assumptions which I think the record needs to show.
Mr
Kennedy: You can have every opportunity to demonstrate
what you say are fundamental errors but, believe me, these are
your figures. These are based on ministry data, and only on
ministry data. What's missing is your acknowledgement that these
are the cuts you've made.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'm looking at ministry data here and it's not
supporting what you're saying, Mr Kennedy.
Mr
Kennedy: In transportation, in 1995-96, $667 million;
today, $577 million. Again, in present dollars, and that's not
including enrolment influence. So you've cut transportation by
13%, and there are kids walking on the side of the highway today
because you cut transportation. Adult education: I think you
might even be proud of this one, but you cut it by some $68
million or 33%.
In your statement you
talked about money since 1997. You've been in office since 1995,
and it's when you came in that you made your cuts. So I don't
want you to be cute with us. Will you table for us line-by-line
comparisons so that parents, students, teachers and interested
members of the public can tell how much money you're actually
spending on education, on children in this province?
I'll come back to the top,
because I know you'd like to respond. Your own figures show, with
just inflation impacting, you're spending $918 less per student.
I'd like you to table any contrary figures you have, anything
that your ministry has here today to show that once inflation is
taken into account you're not doing that. Frankly, the figures
you've already given us indicate that as well. Do you have some
contrary figures today? Could we see them in front of us?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, the only one who is being cute with
figures here, with all due respect, is yourself, and I'm talking
about your research, not your physical attributes.
Mr
Kennedy: Do you have the figures, Minister?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It's my understanding that we've already tabled
with you, many months ago, the chart that shows-let me go back to
one of your first assumptions.
Mr
Kennedy: I'll give you a copy of my figures if you-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, you asked me a question. Do you or do
you not want an accurate answer?
Mr
Kennedy: I don't want you to spend a lot of time. I
would like to know if you would give us the answer.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Do you or do you not want an accurate answer?
The
Vice-Chair: Order. Let's get some process going
here.
Mr
Kennedy: I want accurate.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Funding is based on enrolment. So, first of all,
to make an argument that somehow or other the dollars are not
reflecting enrolment is patently false. That is how boards
receive money-per student-so enrolment is one of the important
things. Secondly, I could throw in what funding was before for
education. I could include the teachers' pension plan, for
example. I could include-
Mr
Kennedy: If you like, but-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, just a second. You asked me-
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I asked you a simple question.
The
Vice-Chair: Order.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Chair, if he doesn't want the facts, we don't
have to provide them.
Mr
Kennedy: You're not going to get away, Minister. I've
got 20 minutes and you're not going anywhere. I've asked you-
The
Vice-Chair: Order. One moment, let's get some better
interaction so I can understand who is speaking. Is the minister
responding or are you asking a question?
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Chair, I'm asking a question. The minister
has been given time to answer it. With all due respect, I've
asked a simple question-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I didn't know we had time limits on my
answers.
Mr
Kennedy: I've asked a simple question: will you table
figures to show what your funding is with inflation and enrolment
factored in? Will you table those figures to this committee whose
job it is to know what kind of job you're doing for the students
of Ontario? I've tabled figures-these will be in the hands of all
the members of this committee-that you have cut funding by $918.
You're filling the air with a lot of time-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Wait a minute. What number was that, Mr
Kennedy?
Mr
Kennedy: It was $918 per student.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Ah, so it's not $2 billion, you said-
Mr
Kennedy: Yes, it is.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It's not $1.5 billion. It depends how you
calculate it. Here we go with funny research again.
Mr
Kennedy: You are the minister. I'm asking you to table
figures. I'm giving you mine-$1.8 billion cut, $1.6 billion cut
out of operating funds-a total of $1.8 billion missing from the
system under your government's watch.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: In 1995-
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, will you table the figures?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I have an answer for you, Mr Kennedy.
The
Vice-Chair: Minister, I think Mr Kennedy gave you a good
opportunity for almost 28 minutes to respond. He has 20 minutes. If he wants
to ask questions without waiting for an answer-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It was $12.9 billion in 1995-96-
The
Vice-Chair: Minister-
Hon Mrs
Ecker:-$13.5 billion today-
The
Vice-Chair: Minister-
Hon Mrs
Ecker:-in transfers to the school system.
The
Vice-Chair: Can I get some order here, please?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That's an increase, not a decrease, Mr
Kennedy-
The
Vice-Chair: Please. Order.
Hon Mrs
Ecker:-and he has those figures, because we gave them
before.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, taking your own figures, then you're
admitting exactly what I'm saying is true, because $12.9 billion
with 11% inflation becomes the figure we're talking about-over
$14 billion. In other words, if that's what you're going to rely
on, then you've admitted essentially that you're underfunding the
children of this province by the figures that I'm referring
to.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'm giving you facts, Mr Kennedy.
Mr
Kennedy: You're apparently afraid to table the facts, to
put them in writing.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: You already have that chart. We gave it to you
months ago.
Mr
Kennedy: No, Minister, we don't.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We'd be quite happy to give it to you again if
you've lost it.
Mr
Kennedy: I've asked you now-this is the fourth time, but
I'll state it just for the record so people know what you're
avoiding, what you're dancing around and what you're afraid to
answer. What you're afraid to answer is the fact that inflation
and enrolment mean that you have cut funding by $918. I have
invited you five times now to table your own figures and refute
that. You haven't, and you won't, because you can't.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That's not true.
Mr
Kennedy: I want to ask you again then the second part of
that challenge, to see whether you actually believe in being
accountable or not, to see whether you're a minister who's going
to stand behind the actions of your department. Will you provide
us-because it takes ministry resources to do it-with a comparison
of the spending taking place, by category, between 1995, when you
came into office, and today? Will you actually give us those
figures so that we can do the comparisons that I've already
suggested are only available right now for board administration
and governance, for transportation and adult education? Will you
give us the other line comparisons? Will you undertake to do
that, or are you afraid of that too?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, we made a commitment to you that we
would provide a number of pieces of information that you had
asked for. You've asked for a number during the course of this
committee. We will provide that information to you. Second, for
1995-96 numbers and 1999-2000-01, we want to give you accurate
information, and some of those comparisons you cannot do because
it's very different the way we fund and boards collect. Boards
had a whole series of ways they counted up money before. We are
working to have apples-to-apples data here, because that was not
in the system before we changed the way we fund.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I'm not going to wait, with
respect-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: So you cannot say that; you can't make an
apples-to-apples comparison.
Mr
Kennedy: I've given you an opportunity on two specific
grounds and you're saying that there are apples and apples and
oranges and oranges. What you're not saying is that you're not
afraid to give us the comparisons of exactly what you're funding.
If you're saying you can't, then I think we have to accept it as
an answer.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We can give you all kinds of data, but it would
not be accurate to-
Mr
Kennedy: From 1995 to today, yes or no?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We can give you 1995-96. That's in estimates.
That's out there, that's not a new thing. That's public data. If
you've lost it we'll give you more, but it's already tabled in
previous estimates.
Mr
Kennedy: No, Minister. What isn't public data is the
comparison between the categories you used in 1995-96, which are
public, and what is available today. Your ministry staff can
provide that or not. Minister, answer the question, or you're
just wasting everybody's time. Will you do that or not?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We'll be quite happy to give you past estimates
that show this.
Mr
Kennedy: No, I want the detail. If you're afraid to give
it-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes, we can give you details.
Mr
Kennedy: It's not in estimates. I want to know if you'll
give it to us or not. What are you afraid of? You're the minister
of the crown, you've got all kinds of people working for you-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, I said we would be providing you with
a whole deal of information you've asked for.
Mr
Kennedy:-and you're giving us this pablum.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No. You've asked me for more information and
we're going to do it.
1640
Mr
Kennedy: You gave us one little chart last time. There
are 16 questions in the last estimates you never even answered.
Now-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We answered that one. We'd be happy to look at
it.
Mr
Kennedy: And now I'm asking you one or two questions,
Minister-
The
Vice-Chair: We're going to move on. Minister, Mr
Kennedy-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We will be tabling information, as we said would.
We will-
The
Vice-Chair: One moment please. I have been very,
very-
Mr
Mazzilli: Oh, come on.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Mazzilli, please. I've been very lax in
having a free flow of debate that goes on. If it continues that I can't hear
what's going on, I may have to ask you all to speak to the Chair,
because of what is happening. I don't know if we're getting
anywhere with this. Let's proceed.
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Chair, I also want to enter for the
record-and I'll ask the clerk to distribute these-a second
related issue which is to show that the government's share of
education funding, not just the total amount of funding going to
the schools and to the kids, is down by $918 per student; down
some $757 in Kitchener and some $536 in London and some $453 in
Peterborough.
Mr
Wettlaufer: That's not accurate, by the way.
Mr
Kennedy: Those reductions have taken place, but in
addition-and I'll table this again. This date is May 9. There is
no refutation for this report. This government has cut its share
from the income tax base it is so proud to brag about by 29%. So
not only is it giving less to kids, it's paying less of its
freight-the same charge it tries to make about other levels of
government. Now I'm going to-
Mr
Wettlaufer: Will you table that right now?
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, please.
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Chair, I'm making this available to the
committee and, again, just for the public record, Minister, I
will invite you to change your mind and provide a level of
detail.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: The data he's talking about are data from the
ministry. I don't know where else he would have got that. That
data does not show that education has been decreased.
Mr
Kennedy: It does, Minister, and it's not refutable.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Money to school boards goes via a government
grant and property taxes. If you take one without the other-
Mr
Kennedy: Madam Minister-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -you are inaccurately reflecting the money that
is going to school boards.
Mr
Kennedy: Well, Minister, you have yet to table anything
to refute any of this, so it's going to be on the record as-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Well, you have that chart. That's why you have
this information.
Mr
Kennedy: -your not having done that.
Minister, in addition, I'd
like to ask you-I asked the question. I assume there's been a
sufficient interval. You were going to look into, for this
committee, how much money it would cost to bring six out of eight
as a staffing formula to the schools, and you were going to come
back to us and tell us how much that is. How much money would
that cost, Minister?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: As I said, Mr Kennedy, you have a number of
questions that you've asked. We will be providing you with the
information. Estimates are not over. You have a number of
questions, I'm sure there may well be others from you and your
colleagues, and we are providing information to you.
Mr
Kennedy: I just want to record, Mr Chair, that on this
simple request, with all the assembled staff we have from the
ministry-I don't want them to identify themselves but there's at
least 15 people in the room-we couldn't get that answer by a week
later.
Minister, I want to ask you
about your strategy. I want to then address-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Well, you're not finished asking questions. I
felt we should file stuff together so we've got an accurate
reflection of all of the questions you and your colleagues have
asked.
Mr
Kennedy: Well, Minister, I'm going to ask you about
that. I'm going to ask you why-I have an estimate, in the absence
of yours, and it's sad that you won't put the information on the
table, but-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, I didn't say that.
Mr
Kennedy: -it looks to me that the cost is something
around $150 million. That looks to be the cost of putting six out
of eight into the schools. Now, Minister, I want to ask
you-there's chaos out there in the schools. You've got a majority
of schools with tremendous problems in terms of extracurricular
activities. You've got all kinds of other disruptions taking
place that were not there last year. Over and over again, you
want to blame teachers for that. You don't want to take
responsibility. You've done it in the Legislature.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No.
Mr
Kennedy: You've said that there are teachers making this
choice. The fact is, Minister, I want to ask for your strategy
here. Are you prepared at any point-and this is a question
parents are asking us all the time. I've got over 50 e-mails in
the last number of days from parents just asking, "Will the
minister do something about the funding formula? Will she allow
this flexibility to take place?" So I'm going to ask you again,
Minister, will you at all consider giving boards back the
flexibility to go to six out of eight? Will you provide the
funding to do that? Is that an option that you're even willing to
consider? Is it at all on the table? Will you look at it as a way
of restoring some sense of normalcy to schools, of getting rid of
some of the chaos that you've induced?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, the workload standard that is in
place for high school students is based on the national average.
I would say to you, what does the Liberal Party think? Do you
think teachers in Ontario are not as capable as teachers across
the country?
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I'm sorry to put this big onus on
you. I know it's difficult, but you do wear the mantle. You are
the minister.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: And we took our position in Bill 74.
Mr
Kennedy: You are in the position right now of making a
decision, and as the minister said-I'd love to let you answer but
you're not answering the question. Will you consider-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I don't tell you how to ask them, so don't tell
me how to answer them, Mr Kennedy.
Mr
Kennedy: Will you at least consider giving the funding
and the flexibility back to the boards so that extracurricular
activities, so that normalcy can come back in? Last year you had 70 out of 72 boards
with normal operations, normal extracurricular. You forced on
them the staffing formula. You've extracted what looks like about
$150 million as the cost of the lowered staffing. I'm wondering,
now that it's out there and causing such difficulty, will you
even consider, is it even a possibility-because I think everybody
out there is looking for a signal from you-the parents, the
students. They've been going to your members' offices, they've
been going all over. They want to know, is there a flexible
minister there willing to look at what she's done, willing to see
whether there's a possibility? I just want to know, will you
acknowledge the possibility to add that $150 million back, to
give the money and the flexibility or not?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, you missed the announcement in March.
I've already done that. I put in $263 million for smaller
classes. I put in $90 million to change the workload standard to
include instructional time and teacher-adviser time. We put in
$143 million, increased money, for special-needs funding, just to
list a few.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, you can waste all the time you want.
It's palpably obvious you're doing that.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Let me finish the answer, Mr Kennedy. We have put
more money back in. We have moderated the definition of classroom
time to accommodate those issues. So we have already moved on
that.
Mr
Kennedy: You haven't moved on that. I demonstrated
conclusively that you've taken money out and, further, you've
made it illegal to have the flexibility for six out of eight.
I want to know if it's a
money issue. You won't acknowledge the costs. I assume your
silence on it means that you're going to stick by your guns at
all costs, because you won't indicate that you're flexible.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, our position in terms of workload
standard is articulated in Bill 74. We took steps to improve that
from the standard that was set two years ago, with additional
monies. We put more money on the table for more teachers, for
example. We have taken those steps. Boards are being asked to
negotiate agreements within budgets. Again, that's not a new
responsibility for them. So we have taken steps and we will
continue to do that. There are teachers-
Mr
Kennedy: What is your ministry's assessment of how much
extracurricular is taking place?
The
Vice-Chair: You've got about 30 seconds left.
Mr
Kennedy: What study can you give us today to show us how
much extracurricular was happening before Bill 74 and how much is
happening now? Can you give us that study today and can you tell
us what percentage of extracurricular activity is still taking
place? Can you?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: As you know, extracurricular activities by
teachers was and is something that is voluntary. We have not
asked boards to do-
Mr
Kennedy: So you don't know.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, wait. We've not asked boards to do
regular reports.
Mr
Kennedy: Well, it's a simple question, Minister, and
you're playing around with us
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We do not do regular studies of extracurricular
as part of reporting.
Mr
Kennedy: I think that's shameful, Minister. I think it's
shameful that you would not.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We'd be quite happy on the recommendation of the
honourable member to certainly ask boards to do that.
Mr
Tascona: Are you going to get control of these hearings?
He's interrupting her answer.
Mr
Kennedy: I won't take an interruption from you.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We don't do regular reports on voluntary
activities.
The
Vice-Chair: I think the time is up, Madam Minister.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, you're afraid of giving us
information.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy, the time is up.
Mr Marchese, you have 20
minutes, and if I could get a little more order in the process it
would make my job much easier.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Thank you, M. President. I'm with
you. I'd like you to tell me when my time is running out, two
minutes before, two or three.
The
Vice-Chair: I'll give you a running clock.
Mr
Marchese: Thank you. Minister, I tell you, when you've
done three turns, it gets awfully tiring. We need fresh blood in
this place because the first-timers, they like it, they love it,
it's exciting. For the second-timers, it gets tiring a little
bit.
Mr
Stewart: Are you going to get out, Rosie?
Mr
Marchese: And the third-timers, I have to tell you-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Should we be looking for a candidate?
Mr
Marchese: I love it when you say, "Here are the facts?"
I love that. That's why you say she's good, right? "Do you want
to hear accurate information?" she says to Mr Kennedy. Because
what Mr Kennedy's about to give is inaccurate, right? I love the
language, the politics. That's why I say you're good, Minister.
You're one of the better ones in this regard, I have to tell you.
But I'm not about to engage in what's a fact or not, because we
say one thing, you say the other. Who is the public going to
believe?
What Kennedy suggests in
terms of line-by-line comparisons would be great. We're not going
to get this, so I'm not going to stretch that. I'm not, because
ultimately I have faith in the electorate. I even have faith in
the 30% of teachers who voted for you the last time around. I
have faith that in the end they will know that their system is in
trouble and they know the facts, right? We've disputed here, but
they know the facts. So I'll leave it at that in terms of a
statement in that regard, because here it's just a game. He's got
figures, we've got figures, you've got figures, and at the end,
who is the public to believe, except the ones who are active in
the schools?
I'd love to be able to get
civil servants to be independent in their opinions. It would be
wonderful. Don't you
think, Frank, that would be exciting, to have civil servants come
here separate from the minister, to be able to give an opinion
independent of the minister? It would be great. Or the other
civil servants who are here who have to work for the minister and
have to provide fixing information. It would be exciting. I know,
Mr President, you agree with me. But that's another matter. We're
not going to get that either.
1650
I've got a couple of
questions. You talked about Fraser Mustard and his report, and
you said his focus was very much a preschool focus. I like his
preschool focus, because I think it's really good. My assumption
is you do too, right?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes.
Mr
Marchese: Then you talked about all the other stuff
you're doing-JK, up to grade 3, all the money you're giving, all
the great stuff. But in terms of M. Mustard's report, I didn't
quite hear or quite get what you are doing to implement that
report, because I thought you and M. Harris, your boss, said, "We
like it, we like him, we like what he has to say about that." But
I'm not quite sure what you guys are doing with respect to that
Mustard preschool report.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Actually, Mr Marchese, you might wish to address
the issue to my colleague Minister Marland, the minister
responsible for children, who could give you much greater detail.
But we have, for example, the demonstration projects, the pilot
projects that are out, in terms of the best model to implement
Mustard. We'll be moving forward with that. I understand, in
terms of some of his public pronouncements, Mr Mustard has been
very encouraged by the work that is happening in that. There are
a number of other programs. Healthy Babies, for example, is a
wonderful program that this government instituted and expanded
that helps to identify high-risk kids early. So there are a
number of steps we have taken, and we need to and will take
more-
Mr
Marchese: You've got to do more, right?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -as the Premier said we would.
Mr
Marchese: I suggest that you implement as quickly as you
possibly can, rather than by way of demonstrations, because
demonstration projects-yes, that's what you've got to do as a
government, but I recommend to you that if you really want to do
prevention, in terms of the work that teachers have to deal with
once the problem is in the system, then you do that in the
preschool years. That's really where you've got to do the
work.
I never hear you folks, you
Tories, talk about prevention. But that's where you've got to
focus the energies on. New Democrats were going to move on that,
and that's something you might want to move on as quickly as you
possibly can. I say that as a statement and don't expect an
answer.
You talked about reporting
as being an accountability expectation on your behalf. I think
reporting is good. It's one way of making yourself accountable,
no doubt. I think it's one-way, though. When you communicate to
them, it's one-way communication.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No.
Mr
Marchese: Oh, it's two-way?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes.
Mr
Marchese: They're able to communicate with you?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes.
Mr
Marchese: Well, that's interesting. When we took Bill 74
out, we had one day and a half. Do you remember that? People were
complaining. We felt we needed greater accountability of your
government. My view is that accountability is making sure you
have plenty of time when you introduce a very litigious,
quarrelsome bill, a divisive bill, a hurtful bill, that you would
give those people who are about to be whacked an opportunity to
respond, including parents and others who are connected to the
education system.
If you believe so much in
accountability-because you articulated that word so many times;
here in the House Mike Harris uses it a lot-don't you think there
would have been something of an expectation to give people an
opportunity to respond and for you to make yourself more
accountable by giving them hearings of a couple of weeks or more?
Do you think that's a good idea? Do you think that's a way of
making yourself accountable? If you do, why wouldn't you have
more than just one day and an afternoon?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Marchese, I don't believe that consultation on
any issue should simply be restricted to a committee hearing, and
this one wasn't.
Mr
Marchese: You don't believe it should be restricted to
maybe a hearing on this one?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: To simply committee hearings. There is much
consultation that goes on. For example, I've met with many groups
and our education partners and continue to do that. We have many
written submissions.
Mr
Marchese: I hear you.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It's not simply limited to public hearings.
Mr
Marchese: So you don't believe in mini-hearings. That's
good.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It's more than that.
Mr
Marchese: Right, it's more than that. Your other answer
is that you already went to consult with them in advance of the
bill, so having done so you're saying there was plenty of
consultation on Bill 74. Is that what you're saying, more or
less?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I find that a person's definition of consultation
can sometimes depend on their opinion of the action that any
government is taking, as you'll well know from your time in
office. But I don't think consultation is limited to simply
public hearings, and there were other steps that were taken on
Bill 74.
Mr
Marchese: I think it's great. I'm trying to get to that
in terms of what other steps you took. You said you don't believe
mini-hearings are the only way. I agree. I think we need more
than mini-hearings. But I'd like to know from you, once you introduced Bill 74, what
else you did to consult those affected.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: There were many written submissions.
Mr
Marchese: Oh, yes. You read them?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: There were meetings that I had with different
stakeholders. Staff had meetings, and some of my MPP colleagues
who were part of my advisory committee from caucus had meetings
with many individuals.
Mr
Marchese: That's great.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: So there were other things that happened as well.
I agree that at the end of the day there certainly was not a
consensus around the legislation. At the same time, I had been
very clear about the need to move in all of those areas.
Mr
Marchese: I'm glad you already went there. You're quite
right.
Anyway, it was good to hear
you on this, for the record, because there are going to be a lot
of people, you know those archivist types, who want to know what
you said about some things, so it's interesting, your answer to
this with respect to how you make yourself accountable.
I've got a couple of other
questions.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Can I make just one observation? Mr Marchese,
every time you and I stand up in the Legislature, ever time you
and I walk out to a public meeting, every time you and I walk out
to a media scrum, you and I are accountable to the people who put
us here-
Mr
Marchese: Absolutely. I agree.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -and that is as it should be, and I take that
very seriously.
Mr
Marchese: Sure, me too, absolutely. That's why I speak
in the House as often as I can, because they see us working.
Absolutely, you're quite right.
I just think that when you
take out a bill, introduce a bill, Bill 74, as divisive as it
was, the people were entitled to a couple of weeks of hearings, I
really do. I believe you do too, and do you know what? I think
you didn't want to get whacked by the supporters of teachers and
teachers, in terms of what you presented there. That's what I
think.
On the question of
trustees, last year you spoke glowingly about trustees. You said,
"They're there because they care very much about education." You
still believe that, don't you?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes.
Mr
Marchese: I thought you would. You also said they were
knowledgeable about education, right? You still believe that,
right?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes.
Mr
Marchese: Yes, for sure. Why, then, would you fine
trustees $5,000 and forbid them from running for public office if
they disagree with you with respect to Bill 74?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We don't. That's not what the legislation
says.
Mr
Marchese: That's what the legislation says.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, with all due respect, Mr Marchese, what it
says is that a school board trustee, just like an MPP or an MP,
is not allowed to break the law. So a school board trustee may
well disagree with the government of the day.
Mr
Marchese: Oh, so they could do that?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Certainly they can.
Mr
Marchese: They could say whatever they like with respect
to whatever you've done, whatever you pass.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: And they do. As you may have noticed, they
continue to express views for and against.
Mr
Marchese: That's good to know. I'm going to pass that on
to the trustees.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That would be helpful, actually, because there
has been misinformation about what Bill 74 does-
Mr
Marchese: Yes, for sure.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -because it does not say that.
Mr
Marchese: Oh, so they're only going to get fined $5,000
and be forbidden from running for office if they break the
law?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes.
Mr
Marchese: Which law? What would that breach be? Can you
give me an example of what it is they might do for which they
would be fined and/or fired?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Education legislation lays out, as it always has
and again as it did when your party was in power-let's take, for
example, a requirement that was in place when your government was
in power that school boards are not allowed to run a deficit. So
they are required, as you and I are in our personal budgets,
small business owners, people who run organizations, to live
within their means. They are not allowed to run deficits. So
school board trustees who deliberately make decisions to do that
might be culpable for a penalty-might be.
Mr
Marchese: "Might," good; not necessarily.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Because I'm not the one who makes that
determination.
Mr
Marchese: Who would?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Bill 74 in no way interferes with trustees'
ability to express their views.
Mr
Marchese: That's good to know. If they pass a motion at
the board level saying they disagree profoundly with aspects of
Bill 74, the entire Bill 74, that's OK?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: And many did.
Mr
Marchese: Many did, and they could continue to do so,
and they wouldn't be in violation of Bill 74 if they passed such
motions?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Of course not. It's called freedom of speech, and
the last time I checked-
Mr
Marchese: I love that.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -it still exists in this country.
Mr
Marchese: Mercifully, thank God. Wait until the Alliance
gets elected. Who knows what's going to happen then.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Even for the NDP.
1700
Mr
Marchese: OK, moving on. I've got a few other questions,
because time is running. How many minutes do we have?
The Vice-Chair: You've got about
seven minutes.
Mr
Marchese: The Safe Schools Act gives you powers that
some of us believe are like police powers. You've given yourself
the right to collect private and personal information. No?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It's a good question, actually, Mr Marchese. That
allows us to do criminal reference checks, and there is nothing
in that legislation that in any way breaks any of the freedom of
information and privacy laws which we in government must continue
to abide by.
Mr
Marchese: Right. So this information that can be
collected in terms of criminal reference checks is just to do
with teachers, students? Who does it deal with?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It deals with board employees.
Mr
Marchese: Anyone, really, right? Essentially?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That is the enabling section that would allow us
to institute a criminal reference check for board employees. That
is something, again, that is a commitment we said we would do.
We're doing the work now to do it. But again, because I think
it's an important question you ask, the Information and Privacy
Commissioner is part of the deliberations in terms of how that
legislation is worded and how it will be implemented to ensure
that something untoward is not occurring.
Mr
Marchese: It's good to know you're working with that
person. You collect information on matters of race as well. Is
that not correct?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No.
Mr
Marchese: You don't collect that information? Deputy,
help us out whenever you think you know something I said-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No. Why would we?
Mr
Marchese: So there's no collection of information based
on race?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Not that I'm aware of. There would be no reason
for that to be part of education quality.
Mr
Marchese: That's good. OK.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: But why would you ask that question, Mr
Marchese?
Mr
Marchese: I'm just curious to see whether or not you
would be collecting such information where the school board
will-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: But why would we?
Mr
Marchese: Because we think that perhaps you might.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Why? That's not what that legislation says.
Mr
Marchese: Minister, that's good.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That's not what we've ever said, so I think it is
not helpful to raise inflammatory issues.
Mr
Marchese: That's fine, Minister.
The
Vice-Chair: I think Mr Marchese is happy with your
answer.
Mr
Marchese: You don't collect information on national or
ethnic origin, sexual orientation-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Again, what has that got to do with safe schools?
This is for criminal reference checks.
Mr
Marchese: That's fine-just to be sure. So in terms of
personal correspondence, we wouldn't check that. If we did, in
terms of students corresponding with each other or teachers or
other board members-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Again, why would I want that? Why would the
bureaucrats want that? I understand that some of our critics are
trying to turn this into something it is not.
Mr
Marchese: Good God, no.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'm not saying you are; you're asking questions.
But no, there is nothing in this legislation that would allow us
to do it and there is no reason for us to have that.
Mr
Marchese: Minister, thank you very much. We're putting
you on the record so that we know and that it's clear.
Moving on to other
questions, because I don't think we're going to get another
chance, in terms of fuel costs: we anticipate there are going to
be greater fuel costs in the next little while, this winter. So
I'm a bit worried because I think some boards are worried about
fuel costs in terms of transportation, keeping schools heated and
all that. It's going to cost a few more bucks. Do you have any
plans to help out?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We've already provided an additional $23 million
to boards specifically for transportation. Fuel cost was one of
the reasons we did that. We are now working with boards to do the
work for the transportation grant in the future because we know
it's not working as well as it should be. So that will be part of
the deliberations.
Mr
Marchese: So some of the $23 million for transportation
includes fuel costs, so they'll be very happy.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: The boards can use it for transportation, however
they want.
Mr
Marchese: I see. And in terms of heating schools, it's
going to cost more. Will there be some support for them or will
they be able to manage with their existing dollars?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We haven't had any concerns expressed about that,
as I'm aware to date. If there are, we'll certainly be prepared
to take a look.
Mr
Marchese: But if there are, you'll talk to them.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Because we are also looking at how we fund
accommodation, and that would be part of it, for upcoming school
years.
Mr
Marchese: The Toronto board has a problem with
playgrounds. You passed some strict standards they should be
abiding by.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No.
Mr
Marchese: There were standards that boards had to abide
by.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No.
Mr
Marchese: OK. There were no standards that were put out?
I don't remember the exact terminology of the standards.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No. The Canadian Standards Association put out
guidelines or standards for playground equipment. School boards
have the responsibility to make appropriate decisions as to
health and safety.
Mr Marchese: Fine. I've got a
question. The board has a problem. It tore some of those down,
perhaps wrongly. I'm not interested in blame; I'm interested in
playgrounds. I'm assuming you think it should be a right to have
safe playgrounds. They put $3 million and they need $9 million
more. How do we deal with the question that they ought to have a
right to a safe playground that they do not have? Parents are not
interested in assigning blame. They want help to get those
things. Are you going to help?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: The school board already receives monies for
accommodation, school renewal. They can use those dollars for
playgrounds. The school board is also in the process, as you
know, of looking at revenues from the sale or lease of school
properties. Again, they are free to use that money as they see
fit within the budget. I don't think when many other school
boards are managing this same issue in a different fashion-
Mr
Marchese: So kids have a right to safe playgrounds, but
if the board doesn't have enough money, too bad, more or
less?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No. School boards have always been responsible
for safety, accommodation, equipment-
Mr
Marchese: I hear you; I understand.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: They remain that way, and I don't think we should
be giving one board special treatment when other boards are
managing.
Mr
Marchese: So kids don't have playgrounds-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Toronto also has extra money that they received
that other boards didn't.
Mr
Marchese: So if kids don't have the playgrounds, too
bad. The board isn't simply finding the dollars that are there
for the playgrounds, essentially?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: On the one hand you criticize the government for
not allowing school boards to make decisions, and when they make
a decision that the community has concerns about, now you want me
to second-guess that school board's decision. You can't have it
both ways.
Mr
Marchese: Yes. Poor kids can't have it both ways. You're
quite right.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Marchese. Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Minister, I found it passing interesting
that Mr Kennedy of the Liberals made his comparison here. I know
he's going to want to go running out to the media very shortly
with his analysis. I just want to point out that under his
government the separate school board in Waterloo region received
something in the area of $1,300 per student less in funding than
the public school board did. That was in the Waterloo region, Mr
Kennedy. So you talk about the reduction in funding. I want to
assure you that in Waterloo region the separate school board is
now getting considerably more money than they did in the past. In
fact, now they are being funded on an equal basis per student as
the public school board, and I haven't heard any complaints from
the separate school board. In fact, the separate school board two
years ago-
Mr
Kennedy: They're both lower, Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr
Wettlaufer: It's my time. You keep it buttoned.
Madam Minister, the
separate school board came to me two years ago and complimented
us on the fact that they had received additional funding. Do you
know something else? The separate school teachers are receiving
parity in wages. Isn't that interesting? Under his government
they were receiving considerably less. So I love how he
pontificates and I love the spin he puts on it and the fancy
words he uses like "disguise" and "camouflage." I'd like to say
that the same thing happened in his government. Maybe that's why
he's so familiar with those words.
The school boards have
talked about cuts in ESL. They've talked about cuts in special
ed. I know that in Waterloo region we're getting considerably
more money now to both ESL and special ed. I would like to
address, however, the question of ESL.
Waterloo region receives
the fourth-largest number of immigrants-I'm not talking about
percentages; I'm talking about number of immigrants-in all of
Canada. That's behind only Vancouver, Ottawa and Toronto. In
addition, Waterloo region has another situation which is probably
unlike any other region in Canada, and that is that it has a
rather large percentage of students who are Mennonites, and
German is their first language. They come to school with almost
no knowledge of English. So it puts a bit of a strain on the ESL
resources of the school board. I know that we have received
additional funding. I wonder if you could give me the numbers in
terms of additional funding that we received this year over and
above what the projected formula was, and if you could tell me if
you have any plans in that area for next year.
1710
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, we have worked with your school
board to examine that data and we're just checking with one of my
officials in terms of what the outcome-I'm not sure what the
resolution of that is, to see what the data is showing.
I can't say where we'll be
for next year on the grant or the English-as-a-second-language
portion. We're doing that work this fall through the normal
process to make the announcement next spring. But the one thing I
should say is there is $20 million more available this year for
school boards and, again, I'm not sure, just off the top, if your
board received more this year.
I'd like to introduce Nancy
Naylor from the ministry, who would like to provide some more
information on your question, Mr Wettlaufer.
Ms Nancy
Naylor: Thank you very much, Minister. I just wanted to
add a little bit more information, specifically about the
Mennonite issue because we did have conversations with the
Waterloo board. They brought that issue to our attention.
The
Vice-Chair: Could you just identify your name and
position?
Ms Naylor:
Certainly. I'm Nancy Naylor. I'm the director of the education
finance branch in the Ministry of Education.
The Vice-Chair: Thanks.
Ms Naylor:
Sorry, I just can't see you very well. It's dazzling to be
here.
The
Vice-Chair: That's the idea.
Mr
Wettlaufer: It's blinding.
Mr
Marchese: Keep the light shining in.
Ms Naylor:
Specifically, with the issue of the Mennonites, the Waterloo
board had brought that to our attention and it was of great
interest to us because part of the funding that's provided to
boards for the English-as-a-second-language grant is in respect
of students who might have been born in Canada but who arrive in
the classroom without a good command of either English or French.
So we do provide a proportion of the grant in recognition of that
and we use Statistics Canada data to help assess the number of
families whose first language in their household is not English
or French.
With respect to the
Mennonite issue, when it was brought to our attention by the
Waterloo board, we did contact Statistics Canada and through an
exchange of correspondence they agreed to take on a special study
for us, to reassess their census methodology to make sure that
they hadn't underrepresented the Mennonite community. There was a
concern that those families were perhaps more averse to filling
out census forms than other households. StatsCan did a special
two-week study for us and they did write back and confirm that
they felt that their review established that they were adequately
representing the Mennonite community. We are capturing that.
That said, we have upped
the funding. The government has increased the funding in the
Canadian-born students portion of the ESL grant for two years in
a row in response to the concerns of the school board and we're
continuing to work with them to look at how that funding can be
made most responsive to the need that shows up in their student
population.
Mr
Wettlaufer: I appreciate that response. Thank you very
much. It's very important to me and to the people of my riding
that the dialogue is continuing with the board.
Mr
Stewart: I want to go to special education. Just
recently I had a call from a parent whose youngster had gone
through the various criteria to get special education funding
etc. What she had been told was that this young fellow met all
the criteria but when his name went to Queen's Park and the board
of education, they took a look and said, "OK, Connor doesn't get
any." That's the comment that was made to this particular person.
I guess for my own information, can you just elaborate on how the
criteria sit and how they work for that special education
funding?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes, Mr Stewart, I'm going to ask Aryeh Gitterman
from the ministry to talk about where we are in terms of those
criteria and the improvements that we've made this year.
Mr Aryeh
Gitterman: Aryeh Gitterman, director of the policy and
program branch.
The criteria for the
process of ISA funding as part of the special education grant
were set originally with input from a variety of organizations,
including representatives from special education groups. They are
meant to assist in defining a mechanism for us to determine the
incidence of special needs in school boards, so that whether or
not a student's particular situation meets the criteria does not
determine whether or not that student receives special education
programs. That determination is made by the school board, not by
a file and not by a review of that file by an individual.
Mr
Stewart: Thank you for verifying that. I did give her
the right answer, which is great. But if they meet the criteria,
then are they funded accordingly? Let's say, if a board has 25
kids who need ISA funding and they've met all the criteria, are
the boards then funded on those 25 kids?
Ms Sue
Herbert: We use the finding to factor in a funding
formula. Because the children who are reviewed generally are of
very high need and their supports are costly, and because we also
know that there's no pattern across the province for the kind of
disability in different school boards and that the pattern
shifts, we had to find a formula that was based on actual need.
In fact, we know this from the results. Across the province
particular communities have different kinds of special-needs
children and so just funding on a per capita basis doesn't
capture true need in local areas. So we use this process to
establish a funding rate and then within that rate the boards
themselves make the decisions, with their parents, about what
kinds of servicethose children need and at what funding
level.
Though it often gets
portrayed as an approval process for each individual child, it's
not. It's a way to establish a fair and equitable approach to
funding what are individual requirements, for which you cannot
just establish a standardized formula across the province.
We know, for example, that
in particular communities there may be a very high rate of
children with multiple handicaps and that level of multiple
handicaps may vary over five or 10 years. It may vary if three
families move out of a community and to a different board. We
have to be able to capture those variances because we can't find
a way to establish a single pattern across the province.
So that's my long-worded
answer for saying that we use it to establish a funding formula
that reflects the need in that board, but the actual services and
the money that supports those services are held within the board
to make the decisions for each child.
The Acting Chair
(Mr Steve Peters): I'll come right to you. For the
record, could you please identify yourself and your position?
Ms
Herbert: Sorry, I'm Sue Herbert, I'm the deputy of
education.
Mr
Stewart: Just a clarification. So the money then is in
the pot. It is then the board's decision to assess the kids on
the criteria that have been established to get them funded.
Ms
Herbert: To make sure that they have the adequate
services.
Mr
Stewart: Sorry, to get the adequate services that they
would require.
Ms Herbert: And that's done
through an individual education plan, for which this year the
government has set new standards about what has to be in an
individual education plan and the involvement of parents in
establishing an individual education plan.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Something that might assist you, Mr Stewart,
because it helped with me, is that a child may well fall into a
particular box that says-for the sake of argument I'll pick a
number out of the hat-$10,000. The actual supports that child may
need during that year may be $5,000 or $15,000. The process we go
through, as the deputy said, is to sort of give a rate for the
board, but it is not to be used to determine whether that child
gets any service or what service they get. We're trying to ensure
that the decision around a child is based on the child's
individual education needs, which may vary, and that the funding
process is the funding process. It's giving money to boards in a
way that reflects need but shouldn't be driving the program for
that particular individual student.
Mr
Stewart: Thank you.
1720
Mr
Mazzilli: Minister, certainly feel free to put this
question to anybody from your civil service you feel comfortable
with. I met with the Thames Valley school board, and I believe Mr
Peters was at that meeting. The superintendent in charge of their
business department said that under the old system the increase
they received this year would have required a double-digit mill
rate increase. You can imagine the appetite of the local
taxpayers for that, where a school board would have to raise
taxes in the double digits to get the increase they did. With
some of the changes we continually hear, "You've gutted this and
you've taken this out." Can you explain how a superintendent in
charge of their business department can tell you clearly that
they are receiving the equivalent of a double-digit rate increase
under this new system?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: The way we fund boards is according to the needs
they have. This is one of the reasons we changed the formula. You
had some boards, say, in poorer communities with very low
property tax assessment bases, and they just didn't have the
money; whether they needed it or not, they just couldn't get it
from property tax for a child's education. By having a system
that's more equitable, boards in poor areas, if I can phrase it
that way, have seen significant increases in the amount of
resources they have for their children, because it is a more
equitable formula.
We spent considerable time
trying to make sure we set those numbers at the appropriate
level. We did a lot of work asking boards, "What do you spend
today on X?" to do the research to drive the policy decisions
about where to set that funding. It is interesting: I hadn't
actually heard from the Thames Valley board that that's what it
would have meant if they had tried to obtain the funding on their
own resources.
Mr
Tascona: Minister, I've heard many times from parents
and students in my constituency that they are concerned about
safety in their schools. I myself have been shocked by things
I've heard from my constituents about events in their schools. I
believe it is important that young people today are aware of
their responsibilities as well as their rights. Can you tell us
what this government is doing to ensure a safer school
environment for all the people involved in the education
system?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: This is a very important initiative that we spent
considerable time on before the last election doing consultations
with our education partners, and parents included in that, and
said last year as part of our commitment to voters that should we
be re-elected we would institute safe schools code-of-conduct
initiatives. We are indeed doing that. We've started with the
code of conduct, the set of behavioural rules for students. For
example, for students who are bringing drugs and alcohol to
school or threatening or harassing teachers, there are mandatory
suspension and expulsion penalties. We have given principals
increased authority to expel a student. We have given teachers
the authority to suspend for up to one day. Before, teachers had
no authority in terms of suspensions. Not only are there
mandatory rules, but also consequences for not abiding by those
rules. Within that framework, school boards are developing their
own codes of conduct for local infractions, if you will, or
issues they think are important. Frankly, many boards already had
codes like this, though some didn't. We now require that all
boards have codes.
It will also provide for
criminal reference checks of board employees as an added safety
feature. It gives principals increased authority to remove
strangers from school property and increases trespass fines. It
will allow parents to decide to have school uniforms or a dress
code. All these things are designed to promote more respect and
responsibility-good citizenship values-in our schools.
I had the privilege of
going to one school here in Toronto that had had serious
behavioural problems, violence and people coming on to school
property. Their academic achievement had suffered. I was quite
impressed when they talked about how they had turned themselves
around, because the teachers and parents said, "This is not what
we want. We want to change this." Their code of conduct, dress
code, all the rules-actually, at the beginning of every year in
this particular school, the parents, students and teachers have
almost a contract, I would call it, where the teacher has
obligations in terms of teaching and helping the student, the
student has obligations in terms of doing homework and coming to
school prepared and the parent has obligations. They think it's
so important that they go through this process at the beginning
of every year. We heard very clearly that our classrooms need to
be safer, and this has been a series of steps we've been taking
to do that.
The
Vice-Chair: You've got a minute.
Mr
Mazzilli: I'll keep it very short. My daughter this year
will be doing grade 3 testing. What can I expect?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I think many teachers work very hard to prepare
young students for that, so they know this isn't necessarily a
personal assessment of that student. It's designed for school boards and schools and
the ministry to judge the system in terms of how well we're
doing. You as a parent certainly have the right to see that
information. It is a helpful tool for you and the teacher to
ensure that your daughter is doing appropriately. If there is a
problem, you and the teacher know about it so you can work to fix
it.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy has 20 minutes.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I want to come back where we left
off. You were indicating that you weren't at all prepared to
entertain changing your mind on Bill 74; you didn't see any point
to that. You also didn't indicate in any positive sense that you
were prepared to give additional funds to help alleviate the
problem in the schools. Do you acknowledge there is chaos in the
education system right now, that there are significant,
large-that a majority of schools are missing activities and
having difficulty under your imposed staffing regime? Do you
acknowledge that difficulty is out there, or do you have a
different version of events?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, Mr Kennedy, there is not chaos in
the system. There are literally thousands of schools and
thousands of teachers who are providing extracurricular
activities for the students.
Mr
Kennedy: Do you have any proof of that? Do you know? You
told us before you didn't know.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, we know-
Mr
Tascona: Mr Chairman, are we going to go through this
again? Why doesn't he let her answer? He shows no respect for
anybody in this place except himself.
Mr
Kennedy: The member opposite has had his own time and he
used it-
Mr
Tascona: The man doesn't even stop talking when he asks
and she's trying to answer a question.
The
Vice-Chair: Order. Do you want to chair it?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, we know that because school boards
have told us. We also know there are communities where teachers
are choosing not to provide those activities as a work-to-rule.
We also know that in some of those communities, as the collective
bargaining process continues-this kind of disruption during a
collective bargaining process, unfortunate as it is, regrettable
as it is, is something we have seen before when collective
agreements were being renegotiated. That is occurring in some
schools and in some boards as those collective agreements are
being renegotiated.
Mr
Kennedy: As you know, because I introduced it to you in
the House, the Ontario principals' association did a survey and
indicate that only 7.6% of schools have normal activities. So
you've got problems to varying degrees in the balance of
schools.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Actually-
Mr
Kennedy: I wonder if I might pose the question.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Just very quickly, elementary teachers are
not-
Mr
Kennedy: This is not elementary; these are secondary
schools.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: All right, then, let's be clear.
Mr
Kennedy: Secondary schools. I was clear before and I'm
happy to be clear now.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: And public secondary schools, too, I think we
need to be clear.
Mr
Kennedy: These are secondary schools that have been
canvassed by the Ontario principals' association.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Public or Catholic?
Mr
Kennedy: They are public.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Again, not including Catholic. That's an
important distinction.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I'm happy to put the question to you;
I'm happy to give you a chance to answer. I would like to do
that. You've got some 92% of schools in this particular run-up,
and you have no figures. Incredibly, your ministry has no surveys
they care to share with us today about what's happening to
extracurricular activity. You forced us to have a law forcing
extracurricular activity, potentially, but you have no idea, and
you don't even have the interest to collect information on what's
happening. So I'm telling you what one group is saying. They've
canvassed schools, and 92% of those schools have problems with
extracurricular activity.
1730
Minister, what is your plan
to bring extracurricular activity back? Do you acknowledge that
you are responsible in any way for the fact that this
extracurricular activity is not taking place in 92% of the
schools, according to Ontario principals?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, it's not 92% of schools, Mr
Kennedy. That's why I asked-
Mr
Kennedy: Well, Minister-
The
Vice-Chair: Let the minister answer.
Mr
Tascona: Mr Chairman, let her answer. The man never
stops talking. That's so rude.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Tascona-
Mr
Tascona: You're the Chairman. Run the meeting.
The
Vice-Chair: If you allow me to, I will.
Mr
Tascona: Good.
The
Vice-Chair: Minister.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Elementary teachers are providing extracurricular
activities. In many Catholic high schools the teachers are
providing extracurricular activities. Public-sector high schools
are where the problem is focused. Again, it's only some schools,
not all schools.
The reason we brought in
things in Bill 74 to deal with extracurricular activities was
because, from what we had seen in the last two years whenever
there was a dispute, political or otherwise, between a union and
a board, between a union and the government, extracurricular
activities was one of those things that was withdrawn from
students.
For many months I said to
the teacher unions that parents did not find that acceptable,
that if it was not an issue that was dealt with, we, as the
government, would have to take steps. It was not dealt with. As a
government, we took steps in 1974. The unions expressed their
concern again that they didn't like the step we took in 1974. I
said: "OK, we will not proclaim that portion. It was designed for
province-wide actions. We will not proclaim that." The good news is that many
thousands of teachers are doing what they said they would do.
Unfortunately, in some communities, they're choosing to do a
work-to-rule.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, apparently you're guessing or you're
wishing that things are well. You've got your head firmly plunked
in the sand. You've mentioned Catholic boards. I have information
that a majority of Catholic boards have no or only some
extracurricular activity happening. I would be happy to see if
you, with your staff, would care enough to check and see what's
happening rather than blithely giving us assurances.
Minister, you didn't answer
the second part of the question. Maybe it's not fair to ask-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We are in regular contact with school boards on
this, Mr Kennedy.
The
Vice-Chair: Minister, let Mr Kennedy finish.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I want to know: Do you acknowledge
that putting more work on to the teachers results in a
reduction-
Mr
Tascona: Mr Chair, on a point of order.
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Tascona, you're out of order.
Mr
Tascona: Mr Kennedy, you're not running the meeting.
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Chair, I'd like to be able to pose my
question.
Mr
Tascona: A point of order.
The
Vice-Chair: A point of order.
Mr
Tascona: My friend over there continues to refer to some
kind of document that he is using in his questioning. I think he
should be allowing us to have a copy of whatever he's referring
to. The last time he started referring to documents, he provided
us with a copy on the last day. Now he's continually referring to
something, and I'd like to have a copy. If he's got a copy, why
doesn't he give us one?
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Chair, I'm not having this come out of my
time. This is ridiculous.
Mr
Tascona: It's a point of order, Mr Chairman. He provided
it on the last day.
The
Vice-Chair: It's not a point of order.
Mr
Tascona: It's a point of procedure.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy.
Mr
Kennedy: I understand, Minister, that your friends
opposite are afraid of this question and therefore they're trying
to interrupt, but let's come back to the question and let's see
if you aren't as afraid of it as the member from Simcoe, where
you've cut funding some $535 per student. I can see the member
being nervous. He probably agrees with those cuts, but he's not
prepared to really defend them.
Minister, again, are you
able to give us an indication whether or not you agree that your
new staffing formula, the one you imposed on Bill 74 around the
province, is at least a contributing factor to the reduction in
extracurricular activity that has taken place around the
province? Do you acknowledge that?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, I think my colleague disagrees with
the assumption of your comments; that's why he was objecting.
We were very clear on the
workload standard that it was the government's intent to move
forward with that as we said we would. We asked our education
partners for advice on how to implement it in a better fashion.
We took advice.
I agree that at the end of
the day we do not agree on the steps we took. But we invested new
monies, made the definition more flexible, if you will, so that
it would be something that teachers and school boards could deal
with. Again, it is something that's being dealt with across the
country.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, with all respect, you are not
addressing the question. When you gave the extra workload to
teachers, did you not anticipate then, and do you not agree now,
that one of the consequences of that is they have less time
available for extracurricular, and therefore it is a contributing
factor for the reduction in extracurricular that's being reported
around the province, that has caused students to demonstrate, to
leave schools, that has caused a significant amount of
disruption? We have at least 27 communities where that has taken
place so far.
Do you see a connection at
all? Do you acknowledge a connection? I think it's fair that I
ask you, yes or no, because you've taken up time talking about
things, quite frankly, which don't directly relate to that
question.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, if you listen to the views expressed
by most of the union leadership, they see the election of this
government as something that is justifying their disruption of
the education system.
Mr
Kennedy: I went to Humberside Collegiate and I've been
to another school. In those schools I followed teachers around. I
also attended classes. I had round tables with teachers, with
students. I spent about 11 hours at one school and about eight
hours at another.
Minister, I'm wondering,
what do you say to teachers who are trying right now to do
extracurricular and who have on-calls? On-calls, for the benefit
of people who don't go to school, means they've got to go into
classes when somebody isn't there or some field trip takes them.
They don't have any extra time. Their lunch time is what they're
using to make up. When they're on four out of four, they're under
a significant amount of stress and a significant amount of
strain.
I want to illustrate one
person for you. I can assure you it's a real person. I will be
happy to bring her down if that would be necessary or even
helpful. This person is a new four-year teacher. Her name is
Stephanie. She starts her day at 6:30 because she has to
photocopy all her own stuff. She comes in at 6:30 in the morning.
She is an immersion teacher. She is teaching four out of four.
She has to do preparation, because there is a new curriculum. She
has to prep for each of those classes, and you realize that's not
four different classes. In her particular school she's got eight
different courses to teach. Sorry, she has seven because there is
only one of the eight that overlaps. She has to do all this preparation.
She has to be responsive to her students. She has to make do with
materials that don't work in terms of the French program in
particular. She has to do this, and every single night she is
putting in two and a half to three hours.
I've watched her in front
of her class, and it was a very exhilarating thing to see the
enthusiasm of the teacher. But I can tell you, Minister, it is
waning. You imposed the burden on her. She would like to be
involved in the extracurricular but she can't be, because she
can't have any kind of personal life as it is now. She's single;
other teachers have families.
Minister, I want to ask you
again if you wouldn't do me and the people of Ontario the
courtesy of answering the question. If you have made teachers
teach more students, taken up more of their day, do you not agree
that that then means that will reduce the amount of
extracurricular that they can involve themselves in? Do you agree
with that or not?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all I would like say that I know many
Stephanies; not personally, but I know there are thousands of
Stephanies out there who care about the kids, who work very hard.
Every time I have a public opportunity to express that view, I do
so.
When we set the workload
standard we looked very carefully at what other provinces are
doing so that we were not asking our teachers here in Ontario to
do anything above and beyond that, and so we are not.
The other thing I think is
interesting to note is that in the elementary panel, where the
workload in terms of classroom is higher, those teachers are
doing extracurricular. Secondly, in the high school panel, many
teachers have different workloads and different responsibilities.
A new teacher teaching new curriculum has a significant job. A
teacher who is teaching a course they've taught before has a
different kind of workload. So those workloads can and should
vary.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, again, with the greatest of respect,
you can't have it both ways. I'm sorry. You can't tell someone
like Stephanie you have respect for her, dump a bunch of work on
her, not give her any assistance with that, deny her from her
extracurriculars and then take no responsibility for it. That's
not accountability, Minister.
1740
Hon Mrs
Ecker: But that's not what we're doing.
Mr
Kennedy: That is not accountability.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That's not what we're doing, Mr Kennedy.
Mr
Kennedy: You've refused, given four opportunities, to
acknowledge your government's role in the mess that's out there
in this province's high schools. You've decided not to do
that.
The
Vice-Chair: Minister-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, we have put in place extra supports
for the teachers-
Mr
Kennedy: You have not.
The
Vice-Chair: Minister-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -because they need that support and we are
funding that support. If there's more we can do I'm certainly
prepared to talk to them about doing that-
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I'm going to ask you another
question. It's extremely disappointing that-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -because it's important support for them.
The
Vice-Chair: We can't have two people speaking at the
same time. It's Mr Kennedy's time.
Mr
Kennedy: -there are parents out there, and students and
teachers, who look to you for leadership. They see a problem out
there and so far you don't even acknowledge (1) that the problem
exists-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, that's not what I said.
Mr
Kennedy: -or (2) that you're in a position to do
something about it, because you refuse to take responsibility for
having increased this workload and diminished people's access to
both extracurricular and individualized attention to the
students.
Minister, having done that,
I still want to ask you, however, does your ministry, this
$14-billion-spending ministry-or $13.9 billion you claim today,
and I don't actually agree with that figure but we'll be happy to
look at the details-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Well, $13.5 billion, and that doesn't include
other expenditures on top of that. That's simply property tax and
grants to school boards.
Mr
Kennedy: In all of that you apparently either lack the
resources or the interest to look into the situation in terms of
extracurricular activity. You have done no studies, you have no
reports. You have nothing to demonstrate to us. I want to ask you
a slightly related question because there's a hopeful possibility
of an answer. So you've nothing to show extracurricular
conditions in this province. Even though you're the minister and
you spend a lot of your time talking about it, you have no
studies. I think that's embarrassing, Minister. I'm sorry for
you. But let me-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Just a minute, Mr Kennedy. We are in regular
contact with school boards in terms of what is or is not
occurring in their community as part of the information we
collect on the collective bargaining process.
Mr
Kennedy: I've asked this already and I'll ask it again:
Do you have a report or a study on the status now or before of
extracurricular activities?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: If you would like us to officially require school
boards to file extracurricular reports-we ask information from
school boards-
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I'm sorry, it's laughable the way
you're wasting my time, because you can't again have it both
ways.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We don't require school boards to officially
report.
Mr
Tascona: Mr Chairman, why do you allow him to act that
rudely?
Mr
Kennedy: Minister-
Hon Mrs Ecker: We can do that
if you would like, Mr Kennedy. But to portray-
Mr
Kennedy: It's laughable, but it's not funny, I'll tell
you that.
The
Vice-Chair: Order, order.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -that somehow or other-
Mr
Kennedy: I want to come back to, and ask you about-
The
Vice-Chair: Order.
Mr
Tascona: Mr Chairman, cut him off.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you.
Mr
Kennedy: Thank you, Mr Chair.
I want to ask you again
about the impact-
Mr
Wettlaufer: Mr Chair, I do have a point of order.
The
Vice-Chair: What's your point of order?
Mr
Wettlaufer: Under the Speaker's ruling on June 21, 2000,
the Speaker said, re responses, "The member whose question is
being answered may not agree that the response is what he or she
wishes to hear, but the goodwill nature of the response from
ministry staff must be taken at face value."
Mr Chair, I think it is up
to you to ensure that the minister or the ministry staff be
allowed to answer a question that is being asked by the
member.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, this is estimates and there
are exchanges that are a little more-
Mr
Wettlaufer: This was referring to estimates.
The
Vice-Chair: May I respond? I gave you your chance. The
fact is that there are exchanges. I myself find it kind of
healthy in a way. The fact is, the less disruption I get from the
other parties so that they can have some exchange here, that's
fine. If I find that they're wasting the time, then I will rule
on that. I know that we'd like to get some answers if he asked a
question, but if Mr Kennedy wants to ask questions without giving
time for the minister to answer, that's his loss, because after
20 minutes I'll cut his time.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Then let me-
The
Vice-Chair: So it wasn't a point of order-
Mr
Wettlaufer: Mr Chair, this is a point of order.
The
Vice-Chair: I told you it wasn't a point of order.
Mr
Wettlaufer: The Speaker also ruled, "The Chair must
ensure not only that there's an opportunity for oral questions to
be offered and asked by the committee, but also that the answers
are to be on topic and do not unduly consume the time of the
committee."
Mr
Kennedy: That would be nice.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Mr Chair, how would we know if they are on
topic or not when the member opposite refuses to allow the
minister to answer?
The
Vice-Chair: As I said, he has 20 minutes in which to
have an exchange in his time. He can conduct it any way he wants.
If he doesn't want to allow the minister to respond within that
time that's his prerogative. I find that sometimes the exchanges
are quite healthy. We get some answers. If I had a point of view,
where would it go? May I proceed now?
Mr
Wettlaufer: Sorry, Chair. I'm going to appeal that
ruling to the Speaker.
The
Vice-Chair: You can do that. You can appeal the ruling,
and we'll get back to that.
Mr
Kennedy: You make yourself look silly, Mr Wettlaufer.
You quoted it completely out of context.
The
Vice-Chair: So you're appealing my ruling and you want
to take it to the Speaker.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Yes, I am.
The
Vice-Chair: My understanding is that I am to ask for a
vote if we should carry this to the Speaker for the appeal.
That's the procedure.
Mr
Marchese: Are you appealing his ruling?
Mr
Wettlaufer: I'm appealing the ruling.
The
Vice-Chair: May we take a vote now then?
Mr
Tascona: What was the ruling?
The
Vice-Chair: My ruling was that the question you raised
wasn't a point of order.
Interjections.
Mr
Tascona: The Chairman is speaking to me.
The
Vice-Chair: I said that the minister may respond if she
wishes. If Mr Kennedy wants to continue for 20 minutes within his
time and not allow the minister to answer, that's fine.
Mr
Wettlaufer: That's not what you said, Chair. You said
"If the member does not want to allow the minister to answer the
question." But the Speaker ruled-
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, that's what I said. If he
doesn't want to allow the minister to answer the question in the
20 minutes, that's his prerogative. You're questioning my ruling
on that.
Mr
Tascona: Just one point, Mr Chair: In that ruling, it
was held that "Where the Chair feels the discussion has reached
an unproductive point or the time being taken is unduly wasteful
of the time apportioned to a particular member, the Chair must
interrupt and move the discussion along"-
Interjection.
Mr
Tascona: Mr Chairman, are you listening to me? Thank
you-"in the interest of fairness to all the members of the
committee.... It is not to the Chair to do so based on his or her
own views about the matter being discussed." I just want to bring
that to your attention because that might help you.
The
Vice-Chair: Let me tell you what might be helpful to
you. It is my discretion to have that called. If you want to
challenge that-
Mr
Tascona: No, I'm just telling you. I didn't challenge
you, he did. I just raised-
Vice-Chair: You did challenge it,
and then I said we would put it to a vote. Is that OK?
Mr
Tascona: No. Did you listen to what I just said?
Vice-Chair: I listened completely
to what you just said.
Mr
Tascona: OK. That's all I wanted you to know.
Mr
Marchese: Chair, you have made a ruling. Joe is
repeating much of what was already said.
Vice-Chair: Yes.
Mr
Marchese: Is Mr Wettlaufer challenging the Chair? That's
the question.
Mr Tascona: That's what I
wanted to know, what the challenge was.
Vice-Chair: Mr Wettlaufer, are you
challenging?
Mr
Wettlaufer: If I interpreted you correctly, that Mr
Kennedy does not have to permit the minister to answer the
question, that is what I'm challenging.
Vice-Chair: You're challenging
that, and I'm going to put it to the vote now.
Mr
Tascona: What are we voting on?
Mr
Wettlaufer: What do you mean-
Vice-Chair: You challenged my
ruling. As you expressed, my ruling is that Mr Kennedy can speak
for his 20 minutes and not allow the minister to answer the
question.
Mr
Tascona: What's the point of having a hearing?
Mr
Marchese: If he doesn't like the answer, he doesn't have
to listen to the minister for-
Mr
Tascona: He won't let her answer.
Mr
Marchese: If he doesn't like the answer, he's saying, "I
don't like the answer," and he moves on.
Vice-Chair: Order. Are we going to
have a discussion across? Mr Wettlaufer, would you like to
withdraw your-
Mr
Marchese: Just withdraw it, Wayne.
Vice-Chair: Mr Marchese, could
you-
Mr
Marchese: I'm just trying to help you.
Mr
Kennedy: It's not coming out of my time, so you're
wasting your time.
Mr
Wettlaufer: It's obvious we can't win a vote because
there are three on that side, three on this side, and you're the
Chair.
Vice-Chair: Are you
withdrawing?
Mr
Wettlaufer: So I will withdraw the challenge only on the
basis that we can't win.
Vice-Chair: You have withdrawn. Mr
Kennedy, you may proceed. You've got six minutes.
Mr
Kennedy: Thanks, Mr Chair. I just want to say I don't
share the view of the members opposite that the minister needs
all this assistance to defend herself, because she really
doesn't. She doesn't answer the questions, but that is her
prerogative.
Minister, I want to ask you
again about the staffing formula that you've imposed. You have
denied that it affects extracurricular. I think that's
unfortunate on your part. I think it undermines your credibility.
But I want to ask you about some of the other effects it has.
Pushing those hours on to teachers has a number of effects. I
want to ask you particularly about your view, as the Minister of
Education, on the team teaching that's taking place all across
the province now. That means that students who used to have the
benefit of one teaching professional working with them, seeing
them on a constant basis, understanding their strengths and
weaknesses, turning them into better students, now have to deal
with two, and in extreme cases maybe as many as four, teachers
over the course of the year, because it's the only way your silly
staffing formula can work in a whole host of schools. There are
huge numbers of schools where this is taking place. I want to ask
you whether you agree with the practice. It's taking place in
Humberside, it's taking place in Archbishop Romero school, and I
can give you other examples. But what I want you to respond to is
your view and the ministry's view of the team teaching that's
being done as a direct result of your change in the staffing
formula. Do you agree with it? That's all I would like you to
address, please.
1750
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, we do not impose the staffing
formula. That is something the boards and the unions negotiate.
We do not impose that. We talk about an instructional time
standard, which can be implemented in any number of ways. Norbert
Hartmann would be quite happy to talk to you about our view on
team teaching.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I want to ask you about team
teaching. Will you tell me whether you-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, I was just saying to you that Mr
Hartmann is quite prepared to talk to you about team teaching
until you interrupted me. If you'd like to hear about it, Mr
Hartmann is here to talk about it.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I want your opinion-
The
Vice-Chair: Order. Mr Kennedy, would you like Mr
Hartmann to respond?
Mr
Kennedy: I'd like to ask the minister: Mr Hartmann is a
very competent bureaucrat, I'm sure, but, Minister, to be
clear-
Mr
Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair: You directly
asked Mr Kennedy a question and-
Mr
Kennedy: It's amazing how afraid these people are of an
answer. It's incredible.
Mr
Mazzilli: Mr Chair, you're in control. You've asked him
a specific question.
Mr
Kennedy: Mr Mazzilli, Mr Wettlaufer and Mr Tascona are
all afraid. I can't get over it.
The
Vice-Chair: May I have all the discussion end? It comes
through the Chair. Stop having this crosstalk. You did raise a
point of order. Let me address that, before you put two or three
more. You raised one point of order, let me address that.
As I said, he asked a
question and the minister said she'd ask somebody to respond. Mr
Kennedy proceeded. It doesn't seem like he wants the response.
That's his prerogative. If he doesn't want the answer, he's got
two more minutes to go.
Mr
Kennedy: Chair, with respect, my question was the
minister's opinion. I don't want the minister's opinion from
someone else. With all due respect, I don't. I would like the
minister's opinion. If she's saying today to the parents who have
expressed their concern that she doesn't have an opinion on the
increased incidence of team teaching out there, where students
are being compelled to work with two and sometimes four teachers
per subject, where they used to have one-if you don't have an
opinion on that, Minister, then, no, I don't need any further
information. I think it's a sad thing if you personally don't
have an opinion about the increase in team teaching.
Hon Mrs Ecker: Team teaching,
if done appropriately, can be a very helpful thing for students.
But if you are asking me to voice an opinion and a criticism on
how a local collective union and a school board are implementing
workload standards, they have choices. If they have chosen to
implement it in a way that is not benefiting students, of course
I would disagree with that.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, you're being too oblique by half.
You're the ones who say it's 6.5. You're the ones who make it
unworkable with everyday schedules. You can't take a half; you've
got to give it as a whole course to somebody at one time.
Minister, I want to move
on-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, we could go back to 6.67, but you
said before that we hadn't made a change in response to concerns.
We did make the change.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I insist on having this time
available. I've got the clowns across, acting on your behalf, and
that's fine. If they want to waste the public's time with their
antics, that's fine.
Mr
Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would ask
that he withdraw that.
The
Vice-Chair: You're all making so much noise I don't know
what I'm going to ask him to withdraw. I didn't hear it.
Mr
Tascona: It was rude.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Mr Chair, he called us clowns.
Mr
Kennedy: If there's anything-
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy, you've got about 30 seconds to
wrap up.
Mr
Kennedy: I don't want to address them. I would like to
address the minister.
Minister, I want to know
whether you agree that the morale of teachers is directly
impacted by the workload you've put on them, the way you are
intransigent about changes and the fact that you're not providing
the flexibility to change things. Do you not agree, do you
acknowledge at all, is there any part of you that you'd like to
put on the record today that says you have helped lessen the
morale of teachers in this province and that you feel responsible
and are prepared to do something about it? Do you personally
believe that some of these measures of yours have impacted and
lessened teacher morale and made the learning environment less
effective?
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kennedy. You have
not left any time for the minister to respond.
Mr
Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Chair: When there are
interjections from any other member of the committee, is
that-
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy, points of order are always
called at the nearest time. I also allowed some extension in the
time, if you noticed. I did give some extension. Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: Mr Chair, if it's all right with you, I would
like to adjourn for the day and reconvene the next day. I think I
need a break and everybody else needs a break. Is that all right
with you?
Mr
Tascona: We don't need a break.
Mr
Marchese: Is that all right with you?
The
Vice-Chair: I'll just ask for agreement. Would you like
us to adjourn? We have five minutes to go. Is that OK?
Mr
Tascona: Let him use his time.
Mr
Marchese: All right.
The
Vice-Chair: We did not get unanimous consent. Would you
proceed with your five minutes. You have 20 minutes, and we have
hearings on Tuesday.
Mr
Marchese: If only the public could witness some of these
things, it would be more than fun. It's pretty stupid what they
do at times. Anyway, to continue with the questioning-I've got a
couple of minutes, I guess.
On the issue of
playgrounds, Minister, do you believe it ought to be a right for
children to have a playground and, secondly, to have a safe
playground?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I do believe children need safe places to
play.
Mr
Marchese: At the moment the Toronto board doesn't have
playgrounds in many schools. Children are therefore being denied
that right to a playground. Would you agree?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: There are certainly communities where the school
playgrounds have been torn down by the board before they had any
idea, as I understand it, as to how they were going to replace
them for the children.
Mr
Marchese: Do you believe that kids have the right to
playgrounds?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Define "right," I guess. I think kids should have
places to play and should have safe places to play as part of
it.
Mr
Marchese: Forget "right." If "right" is too strong a
word for you, that's fine. They should have a playground.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Students should.
Mr
Marchese: Your view, in spite of the fact you think they
ought to have a playground, is that this is the responsibility of
the board. Correct?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It always has been.
Mr
Marchese: The board said, "We have $3 million." They
need another $9 million. Do I understand you correctly to say
that if the board doesn't have the other $9 million, they'd
better find it?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: As I understand it, they had $3 million from some
kind of surplus. That was the way it was described. I was
surprised, after what they had said, that they had a surplus. But
it is up to school boards, within the funding they are allocated.
The Toronto school board has indeed received additional monies in
a number of categories over and above what other school boards
have received. It is their mandate-and that's not new-to make
those decisions. Those trustees are elected to do that, much as
it can distress you and me when we see the outcome of that kind
of decision some days.
Mr
Marchese: You feel bad, don't you, that the kids don't
have a playground? You do feel bad, don't you?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I think that children should be provided with the
opportunities they need to learn, to grow and to succeed.
Mr Marchese: I agree with you,
and you feel bad that they don't have one, don't you?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Certainly I don't think it's appropriate that
children should be denied the opportunities they need.
Mr
Marchese: And there's nothing you can do about that,
really. You feel bad that they don't have a playground, but it's
out of your hands, there's nothing you can do.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We have provided this school board with
resources. It's their decision. Much as I may disagree with a
particular decision a school board has made, it is their
responsibility, their obligation.
Mr
Marchese: If the poor kiddies don't have a playground,
my God, what can we do? It's hard, it's really hard for those
kids, but what can we do?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: What would you suggest I say to a school board
that has managed their resources in a different way so their
children have not been denied playgrounds? What do you think
their view would be if another board received special
treatment?
Mr
Marchese: The way to continue the injustice to the
children is simply to remind the school boards that they've done
wrong and they'd better fix it. That's what I hear you say.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: There are a number of efforts that are going
on-
Mr
Marchese: What are they?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -to make sure this school board is undertaking
its obligations to try to provide these playgrounds. I think they
should be encouraged and supported to do that. The communities
are certainly doing that, to make sure those children do get what
they need.
Mr
Marchese: Will we continue the following day, Chair?
The
Vice-Chair: We can do that. Before we adjourn, Mr
Kennedy made reference to a document, and Mr Tascona and Mr
Wettlaufer have requested that, if he so wished, he may present
that to the committee.
Mr
Kennedy: On a point of order for the record: I did
provide the document at the meeting. I guess Mr Tascona wasn't
here, because I raised that information before and it was
circulated.
Mr
Tascona: You didn't identify the document.
Interjections.
The
Vice-Chair: Let's not get into a debate about this any
more.
