The Vice-Chair (Mr
Alvin Curling): We'll resume the estimates for the
Ministry of Education. When we recessed yesterday, Mr Kennedy had
spoken for about 12 minutes of his 30. You may proceed now, Mr
Kennedy.
Mr Gerard Kennedy
(Parkdale-High Park): Minister, why don't we pick up
where we left off talking about special education. One of the
issues raised by many parents, teachers and particularly those
specially trained teachers was the excessive amount of
bureaucracy.
I want to draw your attention
to some figures that have been collected by the Ontario
Principals' Council. I'll be happy to provide this for copying
for the whole committee. They say, as an estimate only, what
percentage of time special education teachers spent last year on
their total time assigned writing documents to obtain special
education funding from the ministry: 0.0%-10%, 21%; 11%-20% of
their time, 34%; 21%-30% of their time, 26%-26% of the teachers
spent their time administrating your ministry's
documents-31%-40%, 10%; and 6%, probably in small schools where
there are few of them, 41%-50% of their time.
I'm just wondering if I could
obtain a commitment from you-and I think the sampling for this is
about 230 schools. I'm not reporting this as the be-all answer,
but I want to say to you, is this not a cause of great concern,
if those numbers are anywhere near accurate, that somebody who's
supposed to be in the classroom dealing with the neediest kids in
school has to blow away their time, as a process I described
before, not just on accountability but on what seems to be an
excessive amount of paperwork and things that need to be done,
and done every year, in order for those kids to get what they
need?
Hon Janet Ecker
(Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Kennedy, for the
question. I certainly encourage the principals' council to use
their network to produce data for us in a whole range of areas
because I'm finding it extremely helpful.
We acknowledged, when I made
the announcement in January of this year, that the process needed
to be fixed and we took some steps this year to fix it. I'm the
first to tell you I didn't need data from the principals' council
to tell you that the job is not done. That's why we've set out a
three-year plan to fix that problem to strip out red tape and
bureaucracy.
But at the same time I should
also mention that special-needs students do take additional time.
One of the things we ask the schools to do is an individual
education plan for each special-needs student to make sure
they're getting the supports and services they need. Yes, that is
very time-consuming. That is something that principals, teachers
and parents have very much said is a very important part of the
supports for these students.
So are special-needs students
time-consuming? Yes, they are. Do we need to make more changes to
make sure the time that is being spent is productive in terms of
support for the student and accountability to parents, school
boards and taxpayers? Absolutely. We'll continue to do what we
said we would do.
Mr Kennedy:
Can I make a specific recommendation, Minister, and see how you
respond to it? Can we accept that we should reverse these ratios?
Rather than having 20% of teachers spending 10% or less of their
time on documentation and 80% spending above 10%, shouldn't we
make sure that 90% of these people who are counted as classroom
people are actually in the classroom with those special-needs
kids, using their training for that? Could there be some kind of
goal that we could adopt and help arrange?
I don't want to question
three-year plans and so on at this moment. I would like to
believe there were steps; you said there were some in January.
This is a report of what actually happened this year. Doesn't it
make sense, intuitively, that 10% should be a maximum of the time
that these teachers should have to detract from their learning
and be able to meet whatever stringent criteria for
accountability you might come up with?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all I'm a little surprised that Mr
Kennedy, who just in the House within the last two hours
criticized me for setting an instructional time standard for
teachers in the classroom, is now asking me to set an additional
standard for special-needs students in telling teachers how much
time they should spend in serving the needs of special-needs
students. Do we want the process to be streamlined? Absolutely,
because we don't want teachers spending time or anyone in the
board spending time that is not productive on the process that
needs to support this funding.
I'm sure the honourable
member will agree. I have not heard any complaint from school
boards or principals when
we've been working together to solve this issue. They all agree
that we need to have an accountability process to make sure that
the money is going for those students and that it is being well
used. The question and the challenge for all of us who are
working on this problem is to make sure that process provides
accountability in as streamlined a fashion as possible. But no, I
will not be going out setting standards that say a teacher should
spend only this amount of time on a particular special-needs
student. They are labour-intensive students, and they require an
incredible commitment. The special-needs teachers who do this job
are incredibly committed in terms of the time they put into it,
and those students benefit from it.
Mr Kennedy:
Minister, you misunderstand. What I was hoping you would adopt as
a goal for your ministry was that you would streamline your
bureaucracy so the net result would be that they wouldn't need to
spend 10%. I don't at all recommend that you do the other.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, we are going to streamline.
Mr Kennedy:
But let me go to a specific question-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I just said we agreed there is a problem-
Mr Kennedy:
But you didn't adopt the target, and I appreciate it's your
prerogative not to adopt the target if you don't wish to.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -and we're working very hard to fix it, because
we know those teachers don't need to waste their time.
The
Vice-Chair: Can we just have one. Hold on. Wait. May I
get some order here.
Mr Kennedy:
Minister, a specific-
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy, may I have an exchange with one
person speaking at a time?
Mr Kennedy:
Absolutely, Mr Chair. Your discretion.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Certainly, Mr Chair. Apologies.
The
Vice-Chair: Good.
Mr Kennedy:
When the people coming from Bloorview MacMillan School Authority
go back to regular school, they're in that special authority.
They've been documented like crazy to be there. When they go back
to regular school, they have to go through another process that
takes several months. They've got several students who aren't
going to get to regular school till November because of your
process. In the spirit of what we've been talking about, would
you commit to solving that problem, to make sure those kids don't
have to sit out of school at Bloorview MacMillan from September
to November because of the paperwork your ministry is
requiring?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, our ministry is not requiring
paperwork before students are allowed to come into a classroom
and get the education they deserve. There is nothing where this
ministry is saying, "Let that kid sit at home because somebody
hasn't finished the paperwork." That is abominable, and if that
is happening in a school, I want to hear about it.
Mr Kennedy:
You're hearing about it, Minister.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We have been very clear with boards: whatever
process has to be followed for accountability to parents and
taxpayers for use of money is never to be used to prevent a
student from getting the educational services they need. That is
the ministry policy. If there are some schools or some boards
that are having difficulty implementing that, let's talk about
those so we can solve it.
If there are children whose
condition-if you will, whose challenge, whose exceptionality-is
not going to change, it's a lifelong exceptionality, once that
child has entered the school system, that documentation is there.
There is no need to endlessly repeat that documentation process.
That's one of the things we are working on with the school
boards, principals, special-needs teachers and the advisory
council I have of representatives with special-needs students, so
we can prevent those kinds of things from happening. That's not
what-
Mr Kennedy:
Would you undertake to look into this situation for Bloorview
MacMillan? These kids are not getting into school because the
boards don't have the resources to accommodate these kids. They
want the documentation to be able to appeal for extra resources.
That's what's happening here. It's a stalemate.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, it's not.
Mr Kennedy:
Minister, I'm accepting you at your word.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'm quite happy to look into it, Mr Kennedy.
Mr Kennedy:
At the same time, Minister, Bloorview MacMillan also has a
problem they would like your assistance with. The equipment they
have, they can't apply for. I know your ministry isn't directly
involved with the special-needs equipment they have until they
get into the school. There's a jurisdictional issue there, and I
hope your staff can look into it. They find themselves having to
reapply for equipment that would accommodate the kids in school,
as opposed to what they got in the facility.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'd be quite happy to look into that.
Mr Kennedy:
The other questions I have for you at this moment are about your
advertising program. I'd like to talk to you about your ministry
advertising program, the money you're spending to communicate and
persuade Ontarians about what is happening in your ministry. You
have television ads, you have a door-to-door piece that you've
produced. I wonder if you could tell us precisely how much money
you're spending on each of those campaigns? What is your budget
for this year? Will we see more ads, and what did they cost? How
much of your budget are you spending on advertising right now?
What is your total budget for the whole year, and can we get
specific numbers on the campaigns you've done and that you're
planning to undertake?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: The spring and fall information campaigns were
$3,930,000. I make no apologies for communicating with parents.
That's one of the things I said, when I was sworn in as minister,
that I would do and continue to do: take every opportunity,
whether it's letters,
whether it's special mailings, whether it's householders, whether
it's radio or television advertising. I want to use all the tools
that in the modern age we have available to us to communicate
more with parents, because that's what parents have said they
want. We need more information so they can judge for themselves.
I respect the fact that they will make that judgment as to
whether they agree or disagree with the information they're
receiving, and I see that as a very serious obligation I have as
an elected official, as you do, Mr Kennedy, in communicating as
well.
1650
Mr Kennedy:
The second part of the question, Minister: how much are you
planning to spend for the rest of the year? How much have you
budgeted? We're here approving estimates. Where in the estimates
is this coming from, and how much money have you put aside for
the purpose of advertising?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, we don't put aside money for
advertising. It's part of our communications expenditures.
Mr Kennedy:
Where will we find that in estimates, Minister?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'll let Mr Peebles, our assistant deputy
minister-I'm not sure on what line we'd find communications
expenditures, but it certainly should be included as part of
communications. We don't set aside special monies, if you will,
because to us communications, whether it's a news release,
whether it's a householder, whether it's a letter I send back to
a parent, that's all part of our communications budgets, as it
should be.
Mr Kennedy:
I appreciate that. Minister, I would like to know the specific
part. Where will we find the advertising, the media buying and
that kind of thing you're doing on behalf of your ministry?
Mr Ross
Peebles: I'm Ross Peebles, the assistant deputy minister
of corporate management. Mr Kennedy, the total advertising
numbers for the ministry are in a number of places. One of the
places is in the communications budget that is part of the
ministry administration program.
Mr Kennedy:
I see transportation and communications, page 19.
Mr Peebles:
Yes, some of it is in there.
Mr Kennedy:
It speaks to $900,000.
Mr Peebles:
No, some of it is there.
Mr Kennedy:
Where's the rest?
Mr Peebles:
Some of it is in supplies and equipment, which is underneath, and
services, which are a line below. That's some of it.
Mr Kennedy:
Where else?
Mr Peebles:
There's some additional money in the program.
Mr Kennedy:
Which program?
Mr Peebles:
The program is on page 31.
Mr Kennedy:
Page 31, thank you.
Mr Peebles:
And it occurs in part of the supplies and equipment money that's
there.
Mr Kennedy:
So under transport and communications?
Mr Peebles:
It's part of the transportation and communications.
Mr Kennedy:
So money, in other words, about elementary and secondary delivery
is spent on advertising.
Mr Peebles:
Some of it.
Mr Kennedy:
Some of it. Can you give us a breakdown? How much of it comes out
of that line?
Mr Peebles:
Well, the minister has given you the breakdown for the
expenditures.
Mr Kennedy:
The minister provided me with $3,930,000 for the spring and fall.
I want to know what winter and summer are going to bring us. What
are you, for a full year, going to spend on advertising?
Mr Peebles:
We haven't got an amount set aside at the moment for that.
Mr Kennedy:
This is a point of accountability. We're here on behalf of the
taxpayers looking for accountability. You're spending money. Who
decides? I'm going to ask this question very directly, because if
it was partisan advertising, if it was advantaging the government
party, it still has to be signed off by the bureaucracy. So you
should have a plan by now, the esteemed public servants who run
this ministry, to spend this money. Certainly this can't just sit
there subject to political direction. So there must be a budget.
Are you saying there will be no more spending for the rest of the
year?
Mr Peebles:
No.
Mr Kennedy:
Who decides that?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, what happens in part of the estimates
process, as you know, is that there is a certain amount of money
set aside for communications, as we have. Sometimes it gets
broken out with equipment and whatever, and that's part of the
communications budget. So part of that money over the course of a
year-no one starts off at the beginning of the year; you don't
start off at the beginning of your caucus communications budget
and say, "We're going to spend X amount of money sending out news
releases and X amount of money travelling."
Mr Kennedy:
No, I don't need that level of detail. Can I be more specific,
then, to help you?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Just a minute. Let me finish the question,
please. You've asked me a question. So there is a macro amount
for communications, and within that allocation the government
makes decisions about where we allocate the dollars, whether it's
press releases, whether it's letters to school councils. I send
copies of material to school councils. We make those decisions
within that budget. So the taxpayers can be very clear about what
the budget is that's available.
Mr Kennedy:
Let me just tell you, a problem I have on behalf of the
taxpayers, Minister, is that it starts to look like you've got a
slush fund for advertising drawn from different accounts, because
in 1998-99 media buying services, clearly media advertising
purchases, were $7.8
million and yet your budget line doesn't support that. Your
budget lines you've identified so far, combined, don't support
that.
I want to come back to
another question: if there can be a one-page summary of where the
advertising money for last year and this year came from so we can
know, people of this committee can know, where the advertising
dollars are being pulled out of. I would also then like to know
who approves that. What part of your ministry determines where
that money is spent in terms of these overall campaigns that cost
us four million bucks? Where is that approval coming from? Who in
the ministry, in particular, signs off on that?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, we'd be quite prepared to provide
information on past campaigns or past information activities that
may well have happened, but I would also like to ease your mind
that in the budgets for school boards, the budgets that go out,
there is not one dollar that is taken away from those budgets for
any communication activities to parents that we undertake.
Mr Kennedy:
Minister, I think that that and your control of things may be a
bit subjective. You've taken away a lot of money from school
boards whether it's affected that or not, but I would very much
then-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No. We are spending more today on school boards
than we were in 1995, Mr Kennedy.
Mr Kennedy:
I'll accept you again, as I must, and I have no problem accepting
you at your word, Minister, but I will then look forward to
receiving, at your earliest convenience, a breakdown of where the
advertising bucks are being drawn out of the ministry. And
because I didn't get an answer about the identification of the
approvals process in the ministry which is of interest, and I
will state my interest very directly, I want to be assured that
there is no political interference. If these are truly provided
in the public interest, then I'm concerned for the integrity of
the people who have to make those decisions, that they aren't
compelled by some outside influence to spend that money.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Kennedy, I'd be quite happy to get for you the
procedures that Management Board lays down for the purchase or
acquisition of services for communication so that we can ease
your mind and you can be assured that appropriate procedures are
followed. It's certainly my understanding that they have been,
and if they're not, I would certainly be interested in taking
steps to ensure that those appropriate procedures are
followed.
Mr Kennedy:
All right. I'd like to ask you, Minister, about something that I
will spend some additional time on shortly, but I want to ask you
right now because you may have this really quite readily
available: how much money would it cost you and us in the Ontario
provincial government to go to six out of eight in the schools?
How much money are you saving by going to 6.5 and, conversely,
how much money would it cost to have six out of eight as the
standard in the schools?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, Mr Kennedy, we're not saving
anything, because all of that money is in the system. We pay
school boards according to a whole range of standards that are
set, including an instructional time for teachers. If a school
board were to decide that their teachers would work-to use the
rather arcane formula that has come into common usage in this
discussion-if a school board in their negotiations with the union
were to use a six out of eight as opposed to a 6.5, they would
have to find that money from another budget and in some cases,
the Thames Valley board for example, it was very clear they
subsidized the lower workload standard by taking money from the
textbook fund. We believed, very clearly, that was not
appropriate-
Mr Kennedy:
Minister-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Listen, Mr Kennedy, you asked the question, so
we-
Mr Kennedy:
But I'm not hearing a number and, with respect, I only have a
certain amount of time.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Just a second-so we set a standard and we were
very clear about that standard, because we don't think it's
appropriate to take money from another fund to put it in.
Mr Kennedy:
But you're the minister. Surely you know what that means in terms
of dollars. How much difference, if you say you're forcing boards
to cannibalize to do that-you approved all those contracts a few
years ago or your predecessor did, so how much-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, I didn't. No, Mr Kennedy, we're not forcing
boards to-
Mr Kennedy:
I'd like to rephrase my question, Minister.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Just a second, Mr Chair. There's something here
that's inaccurate on record. We are not forcing boards to
cannabalize to subsidize the workload of teachers.
Mr Kennedy:
Minister, there isn't a qualitative difference-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We put a stop to that, Mr Kennedy.
Mr Kennedy:
-and I want it quantitatively. You have the array here of
talented people who run the ministry. Surely they know how much
money it would cost to allow the boards to go to a six of eight
standard without cannabalizing any of the other funds. What's the
cost?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, we can certainly get you some
direct numbers about what that would cost if we were to go back
to that. That cost would have to be taken out of another budget
within the education ministry if we were to do that. That's why
we think it's important to set clearly where we are funding-
Mr Kennedy:
Or you could put some more money in the ministry. You could put
some money-
The
Vice-Chair: Your time is up, Mr Kennedy.
Mr Marchese, you have 30
minutes in which to deliver your comments to the minister's
opening remarks.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Madam Minister, I'm going to ask for
your indulgence and your co-operation because there are a lot of
questions. If your answers are long, I'm going to make a speech
for 30 minutes. If your
answers are short, then I can continue to ask questions. There's
no other way that I see us proceeding in this matter.
1700
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Since we enjoy hearing you speak, I don't think
that's a threat.
Mr
Marchese: No, no. I know you love to speak too, so my
point is, if I get short answers to my questions, then I'll
continue asking them. If not, I'll just make a speech, and I'll
ask the questions and answer myself.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: You're very good.
Mr
Marchese: You're good.
The
Vice-Chair: After the complimentary remarks, can we get
into it?
Mr
Marchese: There are times when I will have statements
and times when I will have questions. First a statement on this
issue of how much money we spend on communicating-not publicity,
not selling ourselves-on communicating. I've got no problem with
that. We were in government, the Liberals were in government. We
all spend money to do that. It's really very difficult to find
the money. It's really not easy to say, as the assistant deputy
said, "It's here and here." It's everywhere, because it's buried
everywhere. You're never going to find it. I've got no problem
with that, because everybody does it, every government does it-to
communicate.
I recall our Premier when
we used to say to him, "Premier, you've got to communicate
directly with the public." He did once, where he paid I think it
was $50,000 for a Global program for half an hour. We said,
"You've got to communicate directly with the public." We don't
get help from the media, as you know. So we said, "We'll get an
unfiltered message. We'll pay the money, and you say what you
want so that people can hear you clearly instead of the filter
that we get from the Sun"-because they were friends, as you
know-the National Post, the Star, which helps the Liberals, and
the Globe.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We haven't got one for you. We'll have to do
something about that.
Mr
Marchese: Yes, you've got to help out. We can't do this
alone. You know that, Minister.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That's right, you can't.
Mr
Marchese: The problem is that the Tories used to attack
us all the time about how much money we were spending. Mike
Harris led me to believe-I don't know about the others. Some of
you weren't here; most of you weren't here, in fact, except a
couple. Mike Harris led me to believe he was going to be
different, because he said so. He wasn't going to spend the kind
of dollars that the NDP spent or certainly the Liberals. Good
God, no, he was going to be different.
Mr
Kennedy: You mean the old Liberals.
Mr
Marchese: The old Liberals, of course, because the new
Liberals are different.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Oh, we've got old Liberals and new Liberals. I
missed that. Thank you.
Mr
Marchese: The new Liberals wouldn't spend a cent, I know
that. But Harris wasn't going to spend as much as the New
Democrats. So he stood up the other day and said, "We've spent a
couple of bucks," and, "Oh no, none of our ads is partisan."
That's what I resent. Just say it. Say you're spending the bucks
to communicate, to manufacture consent. Just say it. But I've got
to tell you, to end my statement, I trust the public. I trust the
public, in the end, to decide whether or not you're using their
money to communicate fairly or not. In the end, I know they'll
know. So I don't bother trying to dig for this information buried
in that assistant deputy minister's file, which is quite thick. I
don't know if the public can see that, but it's big.
Moving on: on the issue of
special ed, just one question. I recall your answers to questions
about increasing special ed and Gerard making mention of the
report saying that we're short $140 million. I've got to tell
you, you almost mockingly used to say, "What short fund? We have
given what people wanted. They said these were the needs. This is
what we've given. There is no shortfall." I remember you saying
that clearly. We don't have the resources for me to get Hansard,
but I can quickly get it if we have to. But you always used to
deny there was a funding problem in relation to special ed,
always.
A couple of months ago you
announced $70 million, $40 million-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It's $140 million additional.
Mr
Marchese: -$140 million eventually, which is what the
superintendents were saying we were short. My point is that you
denied it. Can I ask you, is that true? Do you deny that you
denied it?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No. What I said, if you'll recall and if you'll
go back-and I'm sure we can check the Hansard at some point just
to make sure all of our memories as we get older are not as
faulty as they sometimes are, for you and I and Gerard. But the
claim, as I recall it, was that superintendents were-he was using
the information to say that we had cut special education that
amount of money. That I deny. We did not cut special education
funding.
What the superintendents'
report was stating was that they were topping up what we were
providing them with a particular amount. So not surprisingly,
they, as superintendents have always done, are lobbying the
ministry for additional funds. I had said to all of our partners
that I was quite happy to provide additional funds if we felt
there was the need. We gave a 12% increase, and for the third
year in a row there's been an increase because we did know there
was additional need.
Mr
Marchese: There was no denial. The question was, "You
cut," and you said, "No, we didn't." They said, "We need $140
million," and eventually you listened and said, "That's
right."
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Actually, if you listen to your Liberal
colleague, it ranged a lot, from $140 million to $200 million to
$300 million. I was never quite sure what the Liberals were
asking for.
Mr Marchese: Right, but at the
time it was $140 million. Do you know what, between me and you,
Janet, Madam Minister? I'm going to get those questions-
The
Vice-Chair: Keep that up; I like the first-name
basis.
Mr
Marchese: Of course; we're friends from time to
time.
The
Vice-Chair: I know that.
Mr
Marchese: I'm going to get that Hansard because I really
was interested in hearing your answers to all of those questions.
But there's no point in disputing the nuance of what he said and
what you said; I just remember a denial. But we'll move on.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It wasn't a cut. Do we need more? Yes. We've
provided more, and if we think we need to do it again, we'll do
it again.
Mr
Marchese: Do we need more? Yes. I never heard you say
once, "We need more," never once in all of the answers to
anybody's questions, "Yes, we need more"-never, except you
delivered eventually, which leads me to believe you knew more
money needed to have been put in.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Mr Marchese, one of the things I said when I
first became minister and met with all my partners was, "What are
your priorities we need to fix?" They said special needs, so we
launched a three-year plan to do that.
Mr
Marchese: They told you, and you delivered-no
problem.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'm quite prepared to accept advice from our
education partners.
Mr
Marchese: Of course-I know, I hear you-except when
opposition members ask those questions and we don't get the kind
of answers-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I didn't see you on the list of our education
partners, but I'd be glad to investigate that.
Mr
Marchese: Oh, please.
In your comments yesterday
you were talking about, "To address the challenges of
teaching the new curriculum in combined grades," you were working
with a "curriculum partnership," which is made up of reps from
the ministry, the faculties of ed, the Ontario Teachers'
Federation, to name a few. I'm not going to ask you, because it
would probably take a long time, probably five minutes of my time
and yours, to tell me what you're doing with respect to
curriculum partnership, but I'm assuming it's a good thing. You
don't say what it is, but I'm assuming it's a very good
thing.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It's a very good thing, and we and the teachers'
unions and all of our partners are working together on it.
Mr
Marchese: I know. I didn't ask a question yet. Let me
move on to the next one.
"It is interesting to note
that the number of combined grades has decreased in all regions
of the province over the past three years." Are you familiar with
how many students are in combined grades either in the Catholic
board or the public board?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That statement is based on the data that we've
received from school boards. When the elementary teachers'
federation raised the concern-
Mr
Marchese: I believe that it's dropped. Do you know the
number?
Hon Mrs Ecker:
-we went out and did the data, and it does show that
there's actually been in the last couple of years a decrease in
the combined grades. But I also said that we still have-
Mr
Marchese: A way to go.
Hon Mrs Ecker:
-an issue that we need to address with teachers to help
them deal with combined grades.
Mr
Marchese: I agree with you. I read a statistic from a
separate school document which said that 40% of their students
are in combined classes. It's a phenomenal figure. Are you
familiar with that?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Not that particular figure, no, but if you have a
question about data we can certainly take a look at that.
Mr
Marchese: Assistant Deputy, are you familiar with that
figure? No? It's incredible. I assume it to be true. Why else
would these publications say that? But if it is true, do you
think it's a real problem?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Combined grades have always existed in Ontario
since the first one-room schoolhouse had all eight grades in it.
So combined grades are not new. Why they're more of an issue
today than they were previously is because, of course, the new
curriculum is more rigorous, it is more challenging to teach it
with a split grade. That's why we have invested additional money
for smaller classes in the elementary, because that allows school
boards to perhaps minimize that. We're also investing in more
teacher training and more curriculum supports for teachers who
have combined grades.
I should also say, because
I know that some unions have taken the position that we should
ban combined grades, that if we ban combined grades it means in
smaller communities those schools would cease to function or have
to be closed, because in many communities you don't have enough
students to make up a whole class, or whatever. So the system
continues to need combined grades for flexibility, but teachers
need more support.
Mr
Marchese: No problem at all. I agree that combined
grades have existed. I just believe that there has probably been
an increase. But that figure is astounding and we need to deal
with it. I'm suggesting to you that we need to deal with it.
Providing curriculum support or partnership I think is good. I'm
not sure what else you're offering.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: More money for smaller classes and more
support.
Mr
Marchese: Let me get to the small classes because it
very much connects. But on the issue of combined classes, they've
existed; I'm not sure eliminating them is the answer to that
problem. But that there are problems with teachers teaching
combined classes is serious. You have a job on your hands, you
and your ministry, in terms of helping out.
1710
Hon Mrs
Ecker: But just to be clear-and we'll certainly be
prepared to take a look at the information you have-when we went
to school boards just this year, I asked the question. The
elementary teachers were saying it was a problem, so I said,
"What's happening?" The data we received from school boards
showed that in the last two or three years-I'm not sure when they
started-
Mr
Marchese: There's been a decrease. I heard you.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: But I agree it's still an issue we have to deal
with.
Mr
Marchese: Obviously, you included it in the report
because you must have felt it was serious enough to talk about
it, and that's why I raised the question. I'm saying that, yes,
it is serious. I think a lot more work needs to be done. Whether
it's just curriculum partnership, that might be one answer.
Obviously, reducing class size is the other, and I want to get to
that by way of a question.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Do you have any other recommendations you'd like
to make on this?
Mr
Marchese: That's what we pay you to look at. The
opposition, of course, raises questions-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I just thought I'd offer.
Mr
Marchese: -but usually ministers come up with solutions,
and then we debate them and say "good" or "bad." Sometimes you
don't listen to our suggestions anyway, so what's the point of
raising them?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'd be quite happy to listen to yours on combined
grades.
Mr
Marchese: I'll remember that.
Yesterday you admitted
there is a disturbing trend toward increasing class size. The
Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, one of the education
partners you constantly cite, has been warning you about this for
some time. Do you agree it's a disturbing trend?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That's why we've taken the series of steps we
have: first of all, to try to stop the trend and then start
trying to bring it down. I suggest that job is not yet done.
Mr
Marchese: In the Elementary Teachers' Federation of
Ontario pre-budget brief, you were shown that JK to Grade 2
classes have increased between 9% and 14%. Do you agree or
disagree with that statement?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: One of the reasons we brought in Bill 160 two
years ago was to set, for the first time ever, an average class
size cap. That had not been there before. We brought that number
down again this spring in Bill 74. We put more money, $263
million, out there that is in the school system this year for
smaller classes and, also through Bill 74, we're asking boards to
report on it so we get better data about what is happening. If it
isn't-and you'll hear many teachers in some schools question
whether a particular board is doing what they should be doing on
class size-we will be able to get the data. We also now have the
ability to take action if a board isn't doing what they should be
doing.
Mr
Marchese: OK. You must have heard about the report they
published, "How the government used its new funding formula to
short-change our children's future." The report says this about
your funding of education, because you always say you've given
more, which is what you just said.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: The numbers show we give more.
Mr
Marchese: Yes, of course. "The details of the funding
formula may have been developed to justify spending cuts. The
details actually underline the need for additional funding from
the system. Class size is an example of one area in which
education is getting worse."
We are seriously concerned,
because under our government, class size was much better. You'll
say differently. With your funding formula, things have gotten
worse. Class sizes in the elementary level have gone up, in spite
of the fact that you say they ought to have gone down.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: If school boards are indeed doing that, they are
breaking the law. If they are breaking the law, then we now have,
first of all, the ability to determine that. There's no question
that we have lots of anecdotal comments from people about what
they think is happening. While that is very useful information,
we also need data. Through our legislation, we have the ability
to track that, to ask boards to report on what is happening.
It's the same thing with
combined grades. I know one of the unions says, "Well, we should
just set every class size." Again, I don't think that's
appropriate. What is appropriate for, say, a small group of
students with learning disabilities is a very different number
than might well be required for a different kind of class.
Mr
Marchese: I understand that. That has always been the
case.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: So flexibility is required. But the school boards
are cashing the taxpayers' cheques to meet those class size
standards. If they are not meeting that, we want to know so we
can take appropriate action.
Mr
Marchese: I appreciate that. We have a profound
difference of opinion, of course, because you keep saying there
is more money and we keep saying there is less. Federations keep
saying there is less and teachers experience that, and you keep
saying there is more.
I'm glad to hear you saying
you're going to collect data, because often you dispute everybody
else's data. Parents collect data, teachers collect data,
superintendents collect data, and it's always disputed. I'm happy
that you are collecting data, because then we can compare yours
and everybody else's. I'm glad you're doing it, because then we
can talk about it. Otherwise, you're always disputing everybody
else's data.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Well, no. I think there's some data that's been
very helpful and very useful to us.
Mr
Marchese: Then tell us when that is so, because you
always deny that that data is useful.
Hon Mrs Ecker: I am quite prepared
to take a look at many of the reports that are done on a regular
basis by many groups in education.
Mr
Marchese: I know. On the question of Bill 74, there are
a number of issues. You and your government have often talked
about contact time, that teachers need to have more contact time
with the students. My assumption about that expression is that it
really means more remedial help. Usually when I hear "contact
time" it means remedial help to me. Is that what you mean when
you say we want teachers to have more contact time with
students?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We certainly included remediation specifically as
part of the classroom time standard. But I think one of the other
things we should be clear about is that a teacher's activities in
a school do not start or end with the classroom. This government
has never taken any position other than to recognize that.
Contact time is something that can happen formally in a
classroom; it's something that can happen informally as part of
all kinds of out-of-class activities teachers do. Remediation,
for example, is one of the important priorities we have. That's
why we've put in new money specifically for remediation and
specifically recognize it as part of the calculation for
classroom time.
Mr
Marchese: I hear you. How much time is that? Could you
break it down for me so people who are watching know?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, we were very up front that as part
of the classroom standard, to make it more flexible for the
school boards and the unions to implement that standard, we have
included remediation time. It works out to approximately half an
hour a week in terms of the actual standard that's part of the
classroom standard. But I also hasten to add that we recognize
the reason we did that was because teachers told us they were
doing significant remediation work anyway outside of class. It
helped make it more flexible for the boards by officially
recognizing some of that as part of the instructional time
standard.
Mr
Marchese: No problem. I think it's a good thing. You
probably would agree that a half-hour per week is not much.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes, but that's not the limit.
Mr
Marchese: Right, because the limit would be outside of
classroom time.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, what a student requires may vary.
Some need some; some need none.
Mr
Marchese: Of course.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Again, our education partners were very clear
that they needed that flexibility. But we also heard they needed
more support, because obviously that takes teacher time and we
recognized that. So $25 million of additional new money was
specifically targeted for that.
Mr
Marchese: That part is fine. For the sake of people
listening, that time amounts to about a half-hour a week, it's 1%
or 1.5%.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It's 0.17.
Mr
Marchese: Right, 1.7%, about a half-hour per week
instructional time.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: But the other thing too-and I know there's some
confusion-is that that by no means dictates how a teacher engages
in their day.
Mr
Marchese: Right. You mean during lunch, maybe, that kind
of thing?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: During the school day. Again, it depends on how
the union and the board have implemented many of the
policies.
Mr
Marchese: That's what they were trying to do in Durham.
Let me get to that, because I've got a number of questions in
this area. They needed to have your understanding of what you
meant by contact time. What we see from Bill 74 is that contact
time means that teachers are now saddled with an extra period a
year. Seven out of eight is essentially what it means now. It's
an extra period.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, it doesn't have to mean seven out of eight.
We set a standard that calculates, as a board-wide average, four
hours and 10 minutes a day for a secondary teacher. That's more
than what elementary teachers do. It's also a standard that is
set on the national average, so there are provinces across the
country doing more than that.
Mr
Marchese: I know. But my question-Minister, please.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: How that is translated, though, is between the
school board and the union. We do not say, "Thou shalt teach one
class or two classes."
Mr
Marchese: Minister, you changed the instructional time
from 1,000-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, four hours and 10 minutes; we haven't changed
that.
Mr
Marchese: -to a new definition of 6.6.
1720
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, it's still four hours and 10 minutes a day.
It's explained differently because school boards and federations
told us that the mistake we had made before was that we hadn't
been clear about how we defined it.
Mr
Marchese: Now you're much clearer. You've done a good
job of making it clear.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: And credits are how they organized the time for
teachers, so that's why it's articulated as credits. The time
expired is not more. We are not asking teachers to do more than
what has been in place for a couple of years.
Mr
Marchese: So with Bill 74, what I am asking you to
answer is, are teachers being required to teach longer than
previously, than prior to Bill 74?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No. Bill 160 has-the standard is four hours and
10 minutes. That is the same standard. It was articulated in Bill
74 in a different way so it was clear, because what we heard when
I did my first round of consultations this last year, first year
as minister, was that we hadn't been clear and that it was-
Mr
Marchese: I heard that and the audiences watching heard
that.
Hon Mrs Ecker: That's why we used
that particular definition.
Mr
Marchese: That's fine, Minister. For clarity, you're
saying Bill 74 does not impose on the school system or teachers
any additional workload. That's what you just said.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It hasn't changed from the Bill 160 standard,
no.
Mr
Marchese: So from Bill 160 to Bill 74, teachers are
upset for some reason-these unions, sorry, not teachers. These
unions are so upset that somehow teachers are being required to
teach longer and, good God, they don't understand that they don't
have to teach any more than before because it's the same standard
as Bill 160. That's what you're saying, right?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It is the same standard as Bill 160, but the
difficulty is that it was applied very differently from school
board to school board. Some teachers said to us that was unfair,
many school boards said to us that we had to have a clear
instructional time standard, and we took great care in setting
that standard two years ago-three years ago, actually, to be
perfectly-
Mr
Marchese: I understand very clearly, and the public does
too, and the teachers watching are understanding very clearly
too. This is my knowledge of it: teachers will have an extra
class to teach. That will increase their contact to at least 20
more students per day.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: It depends, Mr Marchese, on how it's
implemented.
Mr
Marchese: To get back to contact time, that means the
time they might have had to be able to spend with students who
need help-they won't be getting it. That time that they're now
obliged to teach, through Bill 74, means they won't have time for
preparation, they won't have time to work with students who might
need extra remedial assistance, and they won't have time to
prepare for the extracurricular activities that people did.
That's my understanding. How do you see it again, so that those
listening will know?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, that four hours and 10 minutes a
day is based on what teachers across the country do. Again, we're
only talking high school, because elementary teachers already
work more than that in terms of the actual classroom time.
The other thing about the
extra class-again, just to talk about one of the boards in my
community-in a semester system there are five periods in the day,
as I understand it, one for lunch, and every second year for one
semester, so it's not for the complete year; one semester every
second year a teacher would teach four out of those five; in the
other three semesters during that two-year period they would be
teaching three out of the five. That's how one board that I'm
aware of implemented that standard. One of the reasons that we
changed to recognize remediation time, teacher adviser time in
the definition, was to provide some additional flexibility,
because for some teachers a four-out-of-four workload may well
be, depending on the course they teach, very arduous.
Mr
Marchese: I appreciate your comments, Minister. I know
that where teachers have taught an extra period last year, in
Durham and other places, they were extremely exhausted. You might
say they don't work a lot anyway, an extra period, more contact
time-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I've never said that, Mr Marchese-
Mr
Marchese: No, of course, you wouldn't say that like
that.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -because I don't believe that.
Mr
Marchese: The problem is that, where teachers have been
obliged to teach an extra period, they've been terribly
exhausted. When that happens, teachers can't teach very well and
their effectiveness is lost. So what you are trying to accomplish
is in fact contradicted; you get the opposite of what you
wanted.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: But why, Mr Marchese-
Mr
Marchese: Minister, no, no. I've got the floor. Please.
I haven't asked you a question.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Sorry.
Mr
Marchese: So that's really what happens when you do
that. In spite of what you're trying to do, which in my view is
highly political, because what you're trying to do is to divide
the general public from the federations, from the unions, from
the teachers, and you're hoping that will stick-the polls show it
isn't, so I don't know what you're going to do. But that's the
politics of it. You are picking on them, as you picked on welfare
recipients, and hoping the public will back you up, and I don't
believe the backing is there. That's the politics of it.
Bill 74, in part, before I
get to some other questions, assuming there's time, obliges
teachers to teach an extra period in one year, obliges them to
teach 20 more students per day. That means their contact time
with students is less. It also means, based on the calculations
that have been done by the secondary federation, that there will
be about 2,000 teachers lost, pushed out, because they won't be
needed. If the same number of teachers are teaching more
students, then teachers have to be let go; they have to be fired.
That's what I'm trying to get at.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That's a valid point, and that's one of the
reasons we invested $163 million in high school, because we heard
the concern about job loss. That was not something we wanted to
see. So the $163 million for the secondary panel and setting
smaller class size for the secondary panel means that schools
require additional teachers because of that. We didn't want to
have some sort of massive job loss. That's not our aim here.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Marchese, you've got two minutes more to
go.
Mr
Marchese: I've never heard you once in the Legislature
say that you heard where they were concerned about job losses.
Never once, except today, did you say you've heard-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: If you'll check the record, I've certainly said
it in media scrums and whatever. I don't know if I've said it in
the Legislature or not, but I've certainly said it in public
speeches and in the media.
Mr Marchese: Madam Minister, the
only place that I hear you is in the Legislature and here. You
never once admitted there would be job losses.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I didn't say there would be. I said we heard of
concerns-
Mr
Marchese: But that's why you put money-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Just a minute. We heard a concern that there
might be. We wanted to ensure that did not occur. We also knew
that people-
Mr
Marchese: But, Janet, the point I'm making-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -parents and teachers, want smaller class size,
so that's why we made that investment.
Mr
Marchese: Janet, please. Madam Minister, I've got the
floor.
I'm saying, like the
federations, that jobs would be lost, that more teachers are
teaching more students, as a result of which teachers would be
fired, approximately 2,000 of them. You knew that. That which you
call "more contact time"-that's the politics of the language that
you hoped would reach the parents. But you knew-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I never used "contact time."
Mr
Marchese: You knew you would save approximately-well, I
don't know how many millions you'd save, but there are 2,000
people who have to be let go. Then you announce, gallantly,
you're going to put some more money back into the secondary
system to reduce class size on the basis that you've already
taken-you're going to lose 2,000. You're going to put some money
back, and who knows how many with that inclusion of the extra
dollars.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: But, Mr Marchese, that investment came with Bill
74.
Mr
Marchese: No, that investment came with taking teachers
out, because 2,000 or so would be lost, and then you invested
some more dollars, so-called new dollars, which you took from the
people who would be fired.
That's the final statement
I will make for the day.
The
Vice-Chair: We will ask the Progressive Conservative
side, the government side, to respond, and I heard you had a
request here.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre): Chair, we would like unanimous
consent to have our 30 minutes deferred until Tuesday. The
minister could do a wrap-up today. As you are probably aware, the
minister is unable to be here next Tuesday, due to a provincial
education conference. If we could have unanimous consent, then
the minister could do her wrap-up today and we would defer our
question period until Tuesday.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I'm not here on Tuesday because of the
conference, but I'd be happy to do it on the Wednesday if we
wanted.
Mr
Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Chair: There is only 30
minutes for either the governing party to be involved or for the
minister, not both. There's only one.
The
Vice-Chair: The government party has 30 minutes and the
minister has 30 minutes.
Mr
Kennedy: No. For the estimates, the rules of order are
that there's only each party. The minister has had her opening,
but traditionally the minister will use the final party time to
give her response, if you look in the orders. We could maybe ask
the clerk to check that, but that is my understanding. Normally
you give that to the minister; that's what usually happens.
1730
Mr
Marchese: Mr Chair, could I make a comment? The minister
said that she would be happy to come back Wednesday.
The
Vice-Chair: Just a minute. I want to clarify the facts
about this 30 minutes first, because what I'm understanding here
is that there are 30 minutes with each side, and as soon as those
30 minutes are wrapped up, the minister has 30 minutes to
respond. Mr Kennedy is questioning the fact that that is not so,
and I'm just doing my little consultation here. I'll be back with
you in a moment.
What I understand this to
be, as I've been told, and seeing by the regulations here, is
that the minister does have a reply after the 30 minutes. She can
always waive that. So there are 30 minutes for the government
side to respond and then the minister has 30 minutes to
reply.
Mr
Marchese: I'm sorry; after we adjourn at 6, she has an
opportunity to reply? How do you mean?
The
Vice-Chair: In that time frame. If the minister wants to
waive that 30 minutes also-
Mr Joseph N.
Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Mr Chairman, as a
member of the governing party, we would like to use our 30
minutes now.
The
Vice-Chair: You're changing it, then.
Mr
Tascona: No, we're not changing anything. There was a
question by Mr Kennedy, which was properly put, with respect to
what the procedure was. His understanding was, it was 30 minutes
interchangeable with the minister and the governing party.
The rules say that we have
30 minutes, as the governing party, with respect to a statement
or if we wish to ask the minister questions and she consents.
Then, after that's finished, the minister has an opportunity to
reply for 30 minutes. That's how the rule reads.
The
Vice-Chair: Exactly what I just said.
Mr
Marchese: I'm sorry, Mr Chair, could I get your
opinion?
Mr
Tascona: If that's the procedure, we would like our time
to commence. Mr Marchese has something to say after this issue is
resolved.
The
Vice-Chair: Let me just get this. You need your 30
minutes now?
Mr
Tascona: Yes.
Mr
Marchese: That's fine.
The
Vice-Chair: That's fine.
Mr
Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Chair: With respect to
the revelation that the minister isn't available Tuesday, I
wonder then if I could ask the agreement of the committee to put
forward a motion that we not sit on Tuesday and be available for
the minister at her available time. Either we then would come
together on the Wednesday, or I would be happy also to see this
motion include a sitting at another time when the minister could
be available.
Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Chair, if I
could just quickly respond: I am attending the Council of
Ministers of Education of Canada. That date has been booked for
many months. I had actually offered the committee the fact that I
was quite prepared to defer and come back at another time. The
House leaders had told me that the opposition didn't want to do
that, but if you want to do that, I'm quite flexible to do that,
and we can try and find a good date.
Mr
Kennedy: We're absolutely pleased to do that. That would
be great.
Mr
Tascona: Well-
The
Vice-Chair: On the same point of order?
Mr
Tascona: No, I'm just-Mr Marchese may have been saying
something, but I guess not.
Mr
Marchese: That's all right.
Mr
Kennedy: We're in agreement with that.
The
Vice-Chair: The point of order then is that we won't sit
on Tuesday. Is that the request in your motion?
Mr
Kennedy: Yes.
The
Vice-Chair: We'll sit on Wednesday and on another
appropriate day, which may be the next Tuesday beyond that.
Mr
Tascona: So we're going to follow the procedure of what
is in the rules today.
The
Vice-Chair: Yes. Is that agreed upon?
Mr
Tascona: Yes, that's agreed.
The
Vice-Chair: So your 30 minutes will start now, then, and
the minister won't come on Tuesday with staff.
Mr
Tascona: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Minister, instead of making
a statement, if I could ask you some questions, would you agree
to that?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Certainly.
Mr
Tascona: The Liberals allege that you have cut education
funding. In my own riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, I have seen
some positive changes to education since this government has come
into office. I think it would help the committee if you could
explain how the funding formula works and how much is spent to
fund education in this province.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We said we would change the way we fund education
in the province, based on many recommendations, different reports
for example, that said that the current way education was funded,
where if you had a rich assessment base you could have a high
property tax and you could spend lots of money on your children's
education but if you came from a poor community that didn't have
the tax base you couldn't spend a lot of money on your education,
this kind of two-tiered approach to education, was wrong and that
we should change it. We said we would. So what we do is, first of
all, the way education is funded, every board is equitable to
every board across the province and it's based on various needs
that boards have. For example, we start based on enrolment of
students: how many students a board has. On top of that money
comes money for things like English as a second language if a
board has a high number, and for special-needs students. Again,
if a particular community has a very high number of special-needs
students, a board would get more money. If a board is in the
north or in a rural area, for example, there are additional funds
for that board for the geographic distances.
It's a formula that's been
tested several times in the courts. It's also a formula that the
Education Improvement Commission looked at and said that the
policy was very sound. There continue to be discussions between
the ministry and school boards about amounts of money, whether
there's enough or whatever. That's a discussion which has been
going on in education as long as the system has been there. In
1995, when we came into government, there were approximately
$12.9 billion out there for the education system. It is currently
$13.5 billion, so there is more out there. Secondly, more of that
is in the classroom, again a priority we laid out before the 1995
election and again in 1999, to have more of the money being spent
not in administration but in classrooms. So there are $700
million more today in classrooms than there was before. That's
since 1977, when we started to track the money. That's a
priority. We will continue to find administrative savings, if we
can, in various places and reinvest that back into the classroom,
and at the same time put new money back into classrooms for
important priorities. The example I always use is the special
education: a 12% increase for this year.
Mr
Tascona: So from my understanding, more dollars are
going to be spent in the classroom and less is being spent in
administration.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes. Mr Peebles can correct me; it's some $150
million less in administration, I think, somewhere in there
anyway. We can certainly get you that number, Mr Tascona.
Mrs Brenda Elliott
(Guelph-Wellington): Minister, under the new school
funding model, I want to turn our attention to the pupil
accommodation formula. Before I was elected, in our area, at any
rate, in Guelph-Wellington, the process to get a new school was
for parents essentially to lobby the board that it was time to
get a school. The board would then lobby the ministry, and
sometimes we'd lobby the minister directly and hope against hope
that somebody would eventually listen and we would be chosen from
among the many projects across the province to be funded. My
understanding under this new model is that this has changed and
that the school boards have much more control over their
accommodation decisions, whether they be renovations and/or new
capital projects.
I recently met with my own
local board, the Wellington Catholic District School Board, and
they indicated that they are very pleased with the increased
flexibility. They particularly like the predictability. Certainly
in my region we're seeing more schools go up than we have in the
past. I understand that the Peel District School Board actually
had a press release not very long ago indicating that they've
embarked on an unprecedented number of constructions of new
schools.
What I'm wondering, since we are in estimates, is
if you would brief the committee on how this accommodation grant
is working, if you have numbers on how successful this model has
been and if you are receiving through the ministry the same kind
of feedback I'm seeing in my own board and in Peel.
1740
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Actually I have, and I've seen the difference in
my own community. For example, especially in high-growth
communities, construction of new schools had fallen woefully
behind and the biggest growth industry was school portables. What
we've seen in the last two to three years is a decrease of some
9% in the number of school portables as new projects are being
built.
The other thing I should
say is that my assistant deputy minister, Norbert Hartmann, would
be quite happy to go into more detail for you here if you'd like.
But just the top line: we're supporting $2 billion in new school
construction that's providing additional spaces for 170,000
students. From 1995 to 2000, 198 new schools have been built and
approximately 150 additions or major school renovations have been
completed because boards now can plan for the future much better.
They can lay out 10-, 15- and 20-year plans. As a matter of fact,
we're encouraging it and we fund to encourage that so we don't
have the kind of backlog in new schools that we've seen.
If you'd like Norbert to
come up, we can certainly go into more detail, unless you have
some other issues you want to raise.
Mrs
Elliott: I think my colleagues may have some other
questions, but I'm glad you raised the issue of portables. That
was an ongoing problem for parents and students alike. I'm very
interested to hear that number is down 9%. Thank you very
much.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Wettlaufer.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Madam Minister, we've seen all kinds of
reports in the newspapers and letters from teachers and boards
that the new curriculum is too hard, and basic-level high school
students are being left behind. I was wondering what you can do
to help the students adjust to the rigorous curriculum.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That's a very good question. I've been quite
concerned about the feedback we've been hearing.
Just to step back, the new
curriculum has been designed to be more rigorous. We've been very
up front about that. Literally hundreds of people have been
involved in the development of this new curriculum: people from
universities and colleges, employer groups, educators, subject
experts. The problem, of course, was that the curriculum was not
giving students what they needed when they left high school. We
started from the question, "What do our students need to know in
order to go into the university or college, or directly into the
workplace?" That was our starting point. We've put the curriculum
in place. For example, 11 and 12 are now out, a full year ahead
of when required for grade 11 and a full two years ahead for
grade 12, to give teachers the lead time. So slowing down
implementation and giving teachers more lead time is one way we
are helping.
Secondly, we are increasing
our investment in teacher training so they can become more
familiar with the new curriculum and therefore be able to assist
students better. We had very great success with our summer
institutes, as we call them. It's a co-operative venture between
the unions and the ministry, and it works extremely well. That's
been another step.
As I mentioned earlier, we
put in additional monies for remediation, $25 million for 70,000
to 80,000 students in grades 7 to 10, crucial years. That is
helping.
Additional money, $64
million, was put forward for the teacher-adviser program to help.
Part of the work the curriculum partnership is doing is to say,
"What else do we need to do to help basic-level students?" We had
a symposium in June where we had all the curriculum experts come.
That was one of their priorities; there are several that they
have.
So we are working at other
strategies to help basic-level kids. As I've said many times,
setting higher standards is not quality education if we're not
helping students meet those standards. It is a concern, and we've
taken some steps to address it. There is more that we need to
do.
Mr
Tascona: I have a question for the minister. You issued
a press release yesterday indicating that the government has
taken the first step in its teacher testing program. We all know
that it is important for teachers to keep up to date with their
skills. Please explain to the committee how your most recent
announcement will help the teaching profession and what you are
working on in this area.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Tascona. One of the
commitments we made before the last election was to bring in a
comprehensive teacher testing program that would help all of our
teachers stay as up to date as they can, up to date on skills
training, learning how to do the new curriculum. I've said, and
will continue to say every opportunity that I have, that I know
we have many good, excellent teachers out there who go above and
beyond on a daily basis for their students. The teaching
profession, like health professions, for example, the legal
profession, and teaching professions in other countries are all
facing this challenge and they are bringing in or have brought in
quality improvement, quality assurance programs to help their
members continually stay up to date.
So we will be phasing in
our teacher testing program-we laid out the framework this
spring-over the next two to three years. The first step this fall
was the language proficiency test. It's something the College of
Teachers had recommended and had felt quite strongly about, that
teachers who were educated in languages other than English or
French, before they are given their certification as a teacher in
Ontario, should have a language proficiency test in English or
French to ensure that they have those skills. The College of
Teachers had actually recommended quite an extensive program for
language proficiency testing. We felt that we wanted to take it a step at a time, so
this is the first step in that and we do think it will help.
We want to bring in a
bar-exam-for-lawyers concept, if you will, an internship for new
teachers and re-certification. So there are a number of steps
we're working on with our education partners to implement over
the next several years.
The
Vice-Chair: Minister, I must interrupt the proceedings
now because there is a vote in the House. We'll continue this
next Wednesday after routine proceedings.
