COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat it had been considering item 2.(a)(1) on page 35. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chair, I think we are using this line to ask a number of questions about New Directions, so there are things in here that maybe could be asked in other areas, but I just want to give the minister some notice of what we are intending.

I wanted to ask the minister about the exams of Grade 12 that took place during the winter. I wondered what documents the minister had prepared that evaluated those exams. It was, as the minister is aware, a process which did not go smoothly in many areas. There was a winter snowstorm, there was difficulty, which meant that a number of school divisions, I think it was about 13 school divisions, did not have the opportunity to write the test on the days that everyone else had written the test, and there were concerns from those school divisions about how their exams would be marked. I think at one point they were told that they would be marked at the end of the line, and I think they would like to know whether in fact that happened. They were also concerned about whether their marks would count in the sense of the overall assessment of provincial results. So perhaps we could start with that.

The other areas, I think, that the minister is aware that things did not go smoothly are, of course, the distribution of mark booklets or writing booklets which did not necessarily have all the pages, perhaps, that they should have had and which led to some last minute problems for some school divisions. I think there were also some difficulties that the minister encountered in the early months in preparation for that exam with the reluctance of some school divisions to allow their teachers to become part of the marking system. This was particularly true, I believe, for schools which had relatively small departments of English and where the removal of one or more English teachers meant that there were difficulties for other parts of the high school, or even if it was a K to 12 school, for other parts of the school. I am wondering if, as a result of those matters of process, the administration of the exam, the minister had prepared a report that would be of some comfort to people who are facing the exam in the next few weeks that these difficulties had been overcome. Was there an evaluation done?

* (1500)

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, these are very detailed questions, and I would be most pleased to answer them. I think, however, we are in a different section. It should be under Assessment and Evaluation, which is 16.2(c). As I say, I am happy to go through the detail, but we are in School Programs right now. So if you want to move to that section, we can, but right now the staff we have here are for the programs. Did you wish to proceed on this one now?

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, since maybe I put that question now, if the minister wanted to answer that one now, and we will save the rest of the assessment ones for 16.2(c).

Mrs. McIntosh: Okay. Mr. Chairman, the exam development process involves the use of classroom teachers, a significant pilot process. The ELA S4 exam was piloted in seven or eight schools, urban, rural, independent, and it was marked using the same process, and based upon this piloting, improvements were made both to the test instrument and to the marking process. The weather was indeed a problem. However, divisions are informed about a process to be followed, and we think, as we went through the experience, that the benefits that were accrued far outweighed any start-up problems that might have occurred.

As the member knows, we have had exams for many years in the province, not language arts, but annually we have been having exams, and this is the first that we have encountered the unusually severe circumstances of weather that occurred. So we have developed a protocol. There was a protocol in place but not as efficient as the protocol that has been developed since we experienced that freak weather conditioning that came about with this year's winter conditions. We are absolutely delighted and most grateful, delighted with and grateful to the teachers who did the marking for the English language arts exams, and we have received rave reviews from them indicating almost unanimously, with the exception of perhaps one teacher who felt the exams were not difficult enough, but rave reviews from the rest saying it was without a doubt the single most significant professional development experience they have ever been through.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

We were bowled over by their enthusiasm at the end of the marking process because we had, as the member correctly pointed out, in the beginning some difficulty attracting people to mark. There were several reasons for it. One was the reason the member mentioned, that some divisions were concerned about having substitutes in for the marking period. The other reason was a resistance on the part of some divisions and some staff members to the concept of assessment and evaluation where people on principle say we do not believe in testing children, and, therefore, we do not wish to be part of the marking process. When the marking process began and the teachers started working together on the evaluation and the assessment, they indicated they had never had a PD experience like it. As I say, that was far ranging. It was not an isolated reaction. It was the dominating reaction, and it was spelled out to us in great detail. So that is a pleasing experience. I think because of that you will see those same teachers wanting to come back and probably others inspired to want to participate as well.

There were about 16 school divisions in the southern part of the province in January that either had to close or cancel school buses because of the extremely unusual weather conditions, and so we found that about 15 percent of the students were not able to complete their examination on that scheduled date of January 19. Divisions where students were unable to write due to weather conditions were asked to have students write during the week of January 22 and send their papers in for central marking. These papers were clearly identified as having been administered late, and marks on these papers were not included as part of the provincial statistics since there was no way of knowing whether results were affected by the delay in writing. The local policy then applied in determining how those marks were to be used and reported. It was important that the marking be done and the papers be returned, but the local policy then kicked in and determined how they were to be used. Affected schools were given the option of determining whether and how to count these marks since the affected schools are in the best position to judge whether or not confidentiality of the exam had been maintained. No student was likely to be adversely affected if the school decided not to count the results of the provincial exam since scores in provincially administered exams tend to be slightly lower than school awarded marks.

Other provinces have policies that if the weather affects the writing of an exam, then the school mark will apply 100 percent for those students affected. In Alberta they use that method. In one case only did they use a backup exam, and that was done here when a blizzard shut down most of the province. But the time required to print and distribute a backup exam in that instance resulted in a delay of almost two weeks in the writing of the exam.

The current department policy is that students who are unable to write a provincial exam due to inclement weather are to have their marks awarded by the school according to local policy. Although the provincial English language arts exam was marked centrally, this principle was maintained for the January 19, 1996, English language arts exam. The standard procedures for communicating this policy have been to inform schools or divisions when they have made enquiries. All schools that were affected by the inclement weather on January 19 were notified no later than January 18 of departmental policy regarding school closures during the administration of the exam because at that date it became clear that the weather was behaving in an extraordinarily unusual way. A departure was made from the departmental policy in that the exams written late were marked by the department, and so we are currently preparing a policy and procedures manual on this issue for the benefit of school divisions.

Regarding the booklets, a hundred booklets out of 7,500 had some printing difficulty. This was a printer error that occurred under conditions that closely monitor for accuracy. Those hundred booklets were pulled out of the 7,500, and divisions were informed the day before the exam to check the documents to minimize disruption during the testing situation. Divisions were extremely co-operative during this period, and they did have additional copies at their schools so they were able to carry on. But we do appreciate the assistance that they provided in that particular instance.

* (1510)

The member also raised the issue of markers' availability. Initially there were difficulties identifying markers; I think I indicated that. In anticipation of having too few, we made a statement that if there were too few, on a priority choice basis we would mark the divisions' papers first who had provided markers, since those divisions felt if they provided markers it would be unfair for them to be the last ones marked, especially in small schools.

As it turned out, of course, we did have sufficient markers, and we were extremely pleased with their work with the marking of the exams. We were not in any instance indicating that we would be saying that schools would not be marked. All schools would be marked, but thrown into the bin of first marked would have been those whose teachers were there. As it turned out, as I say, of course, that was not necessary. Some boards actually exceeded their target and provided more numbers than we had asked them for, and we appreciated that as well. The target number of markers from each division was only a guideline, like, we were not saying you must send six. We would say, could you send five or six markers from your division? I must indicate that the quality of people who did the marking was most impressive indeed.

The member asked if we did an evaluation of the whole process, and indeed we did. That is part of our belief in assessing and testing and examining is to believe in testing and examining our own procedures. As well, a survey form has been sent out to all divisions for teachers and administrators to give us feedback and suggestions on the process so that we can spot diagnostically any areas that we could improve for the next go round, our goal being to continue moving toward excellence in all that we do.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask some questions about overall policies in New Directions, some of the concerns that have been brought to me. So these are not on the specific curriculum, but they are on the overall directions of New Directions.

One of the concerns that has been expressed to me is the role to be played by the Grade 9, and some people will suggest it is also Grade 10 as well, but the Grade 9, Grade 10 mathematics, that this in a sense will become the great sorter, that this is the one where many students will have difficulties, and that the flexibility that had been there in the old curriculum for different varieties of mathematics, consumer mathematics, business mathematics, basic accounting, those kinds of things, is not available until students have passed I think it is the Grade 10 math exam. People are bringing this to my attention as becoming the major sorter, not an English exam, not a communications exam but one particular mathematics exam, and I am interested if these concerns have been brought to the minister, where the minister believes this Grade 9 and Grade 10 mathematics fits in the overall context of New Directions and of the overall goals and skills that the minister has written about, has laid out as her goals for Manitoba students. Is this, in fact, going to be the big sorter and the big streamer, in a sense, and a stumbling block for many, many children?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite certain what the member is referring to. We do not have a sorting process. I know there has been a sorting process in the system to date where students have been pigeonholed and slotted into different categories, but our goal is not to perpetuate that.

At the Grade 9 level, students will ultimately be writing mathematics, language arts, science and social studies, and they will be continuing in Grade 10 or the next year. In Grades 11 and 12, they have a choice of continuing or to start to specialize in various areas, but coming out of Grade 9 they still have choices that they can make, just as they do coming out of Grade 9 now in terms of the subjects they would like to take. So I am not quite sure what she means by the sorting process, and I am just having a little difficulty with where she is leading.

The exams that are taken will count for 35 percent, at Grade 9, of their final mark, which should indicate that the bulk of their mark will still be at the school level. Senior 2 is the year when specific courses for particular purposes in math, science, social studies and LA will be available. This is, in fact, what schools and parents have asked for, so students can begin to proceed incrementally towards areas of specialty.

* (1520)

Math 20-S, which focuses on the theoretical mathematics complements Applied Math 20-S, which is also being piloted during the '95-96 school year. Both courses are based on the western framework for 10 to 12 mathematics. Math 20-S has an increased emphasis on problem solving which is, as of yesterday, something that people know that we need to do some more work on, and I am pleased that we had already started to work in that direction to make problem solving an integral part of education. But that particular course had an increased emphasis on problem solving, and a corresponding decrease in the more traditional, rote, repetitive exercises that characterize its predecessor, which was Math 20-G.

This move marks a big change in the mathematics curriculum. The mathematics K to 12 steering committee at its December 11, '95, meeting discussed the issue of Senior 2 math courses. They affirmed the department's approach to senior year courses. The revised Senior 1 mathematics emphasizes the cumulative nature of mathematics and assumes that students will continue to apply the mathematics from unit to unit and year to year.

These changed emphases appear to be worldwide phenomena brought on by the use of technology in all facets of society. It seems to be pointless to emphasize repetitive techniques in school mathematics under those circumstances. We need a better new curricula with a changed focus with outcomes for students, rather than objectives for teachers, and increased expectations for all students with a major emphasis on problem solving, as I said earlier, involving the application of mathematical knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

Increased emphasis on the cumulative use and retention of mathematical skills and concepts will provide students with increased mathematical flexibility in their lives. The coordination with western partners will allow for enhancements from other jurisdictions, and you will see that mirrored in resources which correlate with the western framework.

So we need curricula that is planned to include future co-ordination with teaching strategies and assessment strategies. It is not a sorting process. It is attempting to provide students with the most relevant, up-to-date curricula properly assessed, so that we will know and they will know whether or not they have been able to acquire the prerequisite skills and knowledge to move on to the next level of learning, that next level to be determined by them.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I think the concern that I have been hearing is that the variety of mathematics that has been previously available, accounting math, consumer math, those kinds of things, are no longer available at the Grades 9 and 10 level. They are available at the Grades 11 and 12 level. That flexibility is there for students who by then are opting for different kinds of programs.

The concerns that I have heard from teachers are that the barrier, the sorting mechanism, that is what I mean by the sorting mechanism, is going to be the Grade 9 and perhaps the Grade 10 mathematics exam, that this is a relatively difficult level, one that they are not convinced that students can achieve in the numbers, the 100 percent that we would want students to achieve, that is all students able to pass this exam, because in the past they have been able to have alternatives in mathematics. Now, at that level, they do not. So I think that is what teachers are concerned about, that this will become a means of sorting out children who are able to go on to Grades 11 and 12, and those who will find that as a great block.

So I am looking for some reflections from the minister on what is intended by that change, of putting the variety of mathematics programs at the 11 and 12, and what implications this has for the whole system. So it is the whole system of New Directions that I am looking at. Is the Grade 9, Grade 10 mathematics unintentionally, and I think it would be unintentional, is it in danger of becoming a barrier for many students and keeping them away from the more practical mathematics which they would benefit from and have benefited from in the past?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I just want to just clarify a statement the member, the teacher, made several times in her comments just so that people do not get the wrong impression when they read Hansard.

The member said, teachers are worried about this, teachers are upset about this, teachers are concerned and teachers are not happy, and she has omitted very important words which are “some” teachers or a “few” teachers. I think those words are very important to note as omissions because, for starters, all of these things that she is talking about--teachers being concerned--were written and developed by teachers. Obviously, if the implication that she inadvertently left on the record was by saying teachers are concerned that she meant all teachers, then that flies in the face of the fact that the teachers themselves developed, wrote and prepared all of this material that the member says some, few, teachers are concerned about.

I say some, few, because I have talked to many, many teachers and there are some, few, who are concerned. They are basically people who do not want any changes in the system, want the system to stay as it is, but more often than not, the teachers I talk to like this direction. Any criticisms that I have heard about moving in this direction have more to do with time lines, have more to do with ensuring that adequate professional development, things like that, are in place. The thrust itself has only been criticized, from people that I have talked to, by a few.

I would like to ask as well, because I am not quite sure why the member feels this is a barrier--she made reference to a barrier several times--I am not clear, nor are my staff members here, as to why having this Grade 9 mathematics with a new, improved, more relevant curricula would be a barrier to something. The results are used to provide information to parents on progress according to a provincial standard as indicated by the majority of parents as something they desire.

The member needs to know at Grade 9, which is Senior 1, now there is one math and there will be one math in the future. There will be three choices in math at Senior 2 and four choices of math in each at Senior 3 and Senior 4. That is, tomorrow, in math, in terms of the number of courses, the same number of courses tomorrow as there is today and was yesterday. I am not quite sure why she feels there is a barrier particularly when, in terms of the number of math courses available, there is no change in the number.

For 1996-97, which is this year, I will indicate to the member the options, and they will continue into the future and will be expanded. For example, consumer math at Senior 4, plus complementary and/or supplementary courses in computer applications and technology, computer science, software applications, seminars on business, mathematics, calculus and so on. That is at Senior 4, but at Senior 1, which is Grade 9, you will have the one mathematics course in the future as we did in the past. Senior 2, which is Grade 10, you will be able to choose from Mathematics 20, General Mathematics 20-S, Applied Mathematics 20-S and Consumer Mathematics 20-S. So you can choose one of those in Grade 10 or Senior 2.

In Grade 11 or Senior 3, they can choose one of Mathematics 30-G, Mathematics 30-S, Applied Mathematics 30-S and Accounting Principles 30-S. In Senior 4, as I indicated before, some of the options, but also compulsory, one of Mathematics 40-G, Mathematics 40-S or Accounting Systems 40-S.

So there is a wide variety of courses, and the member indicated, or I think she indicated earlier, that they would not have any ability to choose options until Grade 11 and 12 or Senior 3 and Senior 4. But when I look at Senior 2 and see all of the options available in mathematics, I think maybe she must have misspoke herself and meant to say that there are--you will see a wide variety of options occurring until Grade 10 and that Grade 9 will not see any difference in the number of options in the future than they currently do or that they did in the past.

So I think she maybe meant to say Grade 10 instead of Grade 11, because that is where the options begin and the variety of courses begin.

* (1530)

Ms. Friesen: The minister says there is one course now at Grade 9, and there was always only one course available at Grade 9. That is what I understand her to say. Has that Grade 9 course changed? How has it changed? Just in general ways, because what I am trying to do is to understand the concerns that have been brought to me.

Mrs. McIntosh: The mathematics course that is being taught this year has been taught for the last three years in Manitoba. This year it was fully implemented, having been piloted for the previous two years. So it has been three years of a full year of teaching to check for any indications of concerns.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

I am not sure where the member is getting her information because the general consensus is that we piloted it for one year; we piloted it for a second year; we were given the blessing and the go ahead from all of those piloting, with perhaps one or two exceptions of people who were resistant to the whole concept of moving to more relevant curricula. But the go-ahead was given from the field after two years of piloting and now one year of experience, and the general feedback we get from the majority of divisions--and there will always be one or two exceptions floating around from people who do not like the new blueprint, who prefer the status quo but by and large the vast majority opinion is, we have approved the pilot after two years because we do think that it is better for our students than the old way.

The changes from the previous Manitoba curriculum of 1979, which is what was in place until three years ago, would be considered major, primarily because the department has not modified its mathematics curriculum for over 15 years and changes are in the philosophy content and the expectation of students. We are beginning to work now, as of this year, with a greatly increased emphasis on problem solving which implies a decrease in rote, repetitive, memorized exercises which dominated the earlier curricula and all indicators are that rote, repetitive exercises are not relevant for today's world. As I indicated earlier, the revised Senior 1 mathematics emphasizes the cumulative nature of mathematics and assumes that students will continue to apply the mathematics from unit to unit and year to year.

I would be very interested in knowing from the member what her source was to indicate that this mathematics was not working, because it is contrary to what we are hearing. If she has a source that she could identify, that would be appreciated. As I say, our indicators are that this was a successful pilot, and somewhere she must have received information contrary to that. It would help us if we knew the source, because then we could go to that source and assist those one or two people, whoever they might be, with the provision of information and philosophy that might help them better understand what is happening and why. It concerns me if those people are in the system and have not been given any opportunity to be provided with information as to why we are doing this. As I say, aside from one or two places where they are resistant to the whole philosophy of change, the majority of people have felt this was not only necessary but very long overdue.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, the concerns that were brought to me dealt with the place of mathematics in the whole curriculum and not dealing specifically with the content or the transition in content. I think in the broader context that the options that the minister says are there in Grade 10 are not necessarily there in all schools. So I wondered if the minister had a sense of how large a school usually is before those kinds of options will be commonly available. I think some of the discussion I heard might in fact be related to that, to the size of school and the provision of options.

Secondly, I think it also comes in the context of those people who are dealing with many students with special needs and that concern that I raised earlier with the minister of significantly cognitively disabled which the minister anticipates will be a very small proportion overall in the province so, obviously, more in some areas than in others and people's concern that the single Grade 9 examination, which must now be passed by the vast majority of students with very detailed criteria for significantly cognitive disabled, that this may become a barrier that the government may not have intended.

So that is the context of it, the role and place of this particular subject.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is describing a situation that is eternal in education, at least it has been since education began trying to offer a wide variety of opportunities for people. The question of options that are available, and options that are available at any particular school, is a question that has been around for many, many years, because, as the member knows, during the term that her government was in office, there were many more options available than many schools could take advantage of. That situation continues right across the world. There are options available provincially that are not available in every school because of the size of the school or the makeup of the students.

This government has put a lot of effort into the development of technologies and the establishment of MERLIN to try to assist small schools with distance education, with mediated teaching, with a variety of things that will help small schools. We have small schools grants that we provide, and that is, as I indicated, why we are examining distance and delivery capabilities. Having said that, it would be our desire, if we could, that every school could offer every subject to every student, and we also would like to see students have courses that are most applicable to their own needs. Students enrolled in the M, I and E designated courses would have highly individualized programs and would not be participating in provincial standards tests. So, you know, we do have one group of students that--whether the member feels that exams are a barrier or a hindrance or whatever else that the opposition may feel about exams, there are some students who would not have either the barrier, as the member calls it, or the opportunity, as we would call it. Although they certainly can write the exams if they wish, students in those categories are not obliged to write them.

We know that we cannot always in schools of certain sizes provide the full and total range of options, but we do know, for example, that we have one student in a high school in Miami, Manitoba, which is a very small town, that is taking calculus. The only student in the school to take calculus from very good instruction, and so on, because it is being taken through Distance Education, something that we implemented for students and which has great potential for the future. As I say, that is in its infancy, so it will take time to build and is not available universally at this time.

* (1540)

When we came into office we began the changes in the math curriculum that the member is concerned about. We began those changes starting with kindergarten to Grade 4, then Grades 5 to 8, and now Senior 1, Senior 2 and Senior 3 and Senior 4. So we have been working on them for many years. They did not just sort of pop into existence overnight. I do not know if that provides some of the detail the member was looking for, but, if it does not, I will wait for additional questioning.

Ms. Friesen: My question dealt with the number of schools which were able to offer more than one mathematics course in Grade 10. I wondered what the level of numbers in a school generally would be before that variety of options that the minister talked about would be available.

Mrs. McIntosh: Our procedures on this have not changed very much from the days when the member's party governed this province. That information is not kept on file, but, as I said, we do assist small schools with our funding formula, and there are correspondence courses available. That information historically has not been kept on file and is not at this time either.

Ms. Friesen: I wanted to ask about some general issues with New Directions, and one of the ones that concerns me is the overall direction of policy. The Roblin commission, for example, talked about cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, encouraged universities to move beyond the disciplines. New Directions, it seems to me, takes a very strong subject orientation. I wondered if the minister would like to comment on how she would like to see those linking. What are the areas of New Directions where cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary programs will become part of students’ learning?

Mrs. McIntosh: I am confused a bit by the apparent contradiction in terms of policy desires between the member for Wolseley and the member for Radisson. Maybe I am misinterpreting. It seems to me that yesterday the member from Radisson was extremely irate and upset that we were doing an interdisciplinary linkage with health and physical education. That is an example of this interdisciplinary thrust, but I am hearing in the member's question, here, phrased as if it is something that is to be desired, but in yesterday's I was very definitely given the message that this is a big no-no, so I do not know, she may wish to clarify where she is coming from on it, but the member is overlooking the essence of New Directions which we have discussed publicly enormously, foundation skills in a holistic sense.

We have talked about problem solving being something that needs to permeate all elements of education, and the Foundation for Excellence, for example, indicates that foundation skills and other elements will be integrated in curriculum frameworks documents to ensure rigorous and inclusive curriculum for all students, and we have listed them, literacy and communication, human relations, resource-based learning, and so on, problem solving. Manitoba is breaking new ground in preparing inclusive curriculum frameworks, and I just want to pause and give a little example here because I think it is very telling.

I was out visiting a school on one of my regular school visits and was reading to a class of children. I was reading a story called The Fourth Little Pig. These were Grade 3 students, and the story of the fourth little pig was about the three little pigs that had been chased by the wolf, in a brick house, hiding in the house afraid to come out because the wolf was going to get them if they went out. The fourth little pig appeared at the door, and she was their big sister, and the little pigs opened the door and pulled her into the house, and she said, why are you hiding in the house? And they said, we are afraid to go out because the big, bad wolf will get us, and the fourth little pig said, do not be silly, you cannot hide in a brick house all your life. Come out and face the world. There is no big, bad wolf out there.

* (1550)

The little pigs then began to argue with her, and as I was reading the story, the reaction of the children was very, very interesting. I said to the children, what do you think is going to happen next, and one to the students said, I do not think that is a fourth little pig. I think that is the big, bad wolf in disguise coming to try and trick the pigs because he could not get them when he tried to blow the house down. Anyhow, we turned the page. The fourth little pig indicated that the three little pigs should come outside, and, if they did not come outside, she would huff and puff and blow their house down. The students then said, I think that is the big, bad wolf in disguise because that individual is using the same language the big, bad wolf used to use. That individual is saying huff and puff and blow your house down. That is what the big, bad wolf said, so it must be the big bad wolf in disguise.

Another child said, but the big, bag wolf was not able to huff and puff and blow the house down before, so why would he be saying he would try it again now because he already tried and it did not work. Another student said, well, maybe it is easier to blow the house down from inside rather than outside. Maybe the way air moves around inside a house makes it easier to blow down from the inside out than from the outside in. Another student then said, well, maybe it is the wolf in disguise, and under the dress he has got one of those things that you use for fireplaces, those bellows things that will give extra air and help add to blow the walls down.

They went on in this vein, and I was absolutely fascinated as they proposed theory after theory after theory as to what they thought would happen next based upon information they had been given prior to their dialogue. They then criticized each other's theories, shot them down with no concern or care about hurt egos or feelings. They were analyzing a problem, looking for errors in suppositions, adding and building on each other's theories and essentially doing an analysis of the story and projected outcomes.

It turned out in the end that it was the fourth little pig, and it was their sister, and she was there to get them out into the world. The final comment made by one of the girl students in the class was--one of the students in the class said I believe that this is the big sister, and I believe that she will be able to blow the house down, because she is a girl pig and girls are bigger and smarter. So I thought that was kind of an--but I said to the teacher afterwards, you know, I am really impressed with your students. They have obviously been taught how to think. They have obviously been taught how to explore ideas and concepts. They are so self confident in their exploration of ideas.

The teacher said to me, well, that is your emphasis on problem solving. We have been working on problem solving in every subject area, like you have told us to do. In the beginning it was a lot of work, and we wondered if it would be successful but, Madam Minister, you see the results before your very eyes, problem solving integrated into literacy and literature.

That is what we are talking about when we say things have to permeate. That is a real live example that I participated in myself. I could give you more details on that, because it was interesting then to go through and see how problem solving had enriched the children's academic achievement in all areas.

Also we have developed an effective instructional model that is interdisciplinary in nature, supports the integration of multimedia technology throughout provincial curricula and facilitates systemic self-sustaining implementation. We can see in our results of having technology permeate, of having technology permeate every area. The thematic multimedia-based teaching units are being developed and are developed in each of the four phases of the project. We see these units, they are interdisciplinary in nature, and they focus on curriculum outcomes at particular middle years grade levels. The phases of the project are aligned with the '95-96, '96-97, '97-98, '98-99 fiscal years.

Multimedia computer hardware, software seed is provided in representative middle years pilot schools throughout the provinc through distribution of grants, 70 percent government funded. Grants have a cap; they will not exceed more than $14,000 per school, and 20 schools have been selected in each of the four fiscal years. These I do believe will do our purpose, which is to develop an effective instructional model that is interdisciplinary in nature as far as multimedia technology is concerned. That is just one area. I have talked about so many others.

Through the department we support subject area integration at the classroom level. Currently such support is evidenced via our work with schools on projects such as interdisciplinary multiyears multimedia project and curricular connections and the thinking framework. Time allotments are guidelines here, and that permits subject integration if that is the desire of a school. We want to help schools and teachers be clear about the subject options. I am being indicated that my time is up, so I will stop there.

Ms. Friesen: What I was asking about, and what I was looking for was some connection between New Directions and the subject emphasis that is there in the examinations and the kinds of goals that I think Roblin was moving towards for universities and colleges and, that is, trying to break down some of the old disciplines, trying to integrate a cross curriculum. Yet, it seems to me that as we look at the high school curriculum under New Directions that there is still a great emphasis--and in this case the emphasis coming through the government waiting of examination results, an emphasis that schools will reflect upon--that the emphasis is upon subjects and individual disciplines.

Now the minister in her response talked about subject area integration and gave, I believe as an example of that, the interdisciplinary multimedia curriculum project. My understanding is that is primarily in the middle years. What I am trying to get at is what balance there is or what new directions is the government looking at in interdisciplinary kinds of education, the kind of thing that Roblin--and I understand that he takes it from Ernest Boyer--the kind of education that he is looking at in the future. I am wondering if there is a contradiction here and what the government is doing in its overall K to graduation. Are there parallels that we should be looking at? I am looking for some evidence of the department's overall thinking on this.

* (1600)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I am thinking the member and I are maybe reading Roblin differently in that I did not see Roblin saying you should not teach subject content. You have to have subject content. I also did not see Roblin advocating blending of disciplines. What I interpreted Roblin as doing was advocating the blending and sharing of administration, breaking down barriers to mobility, transferability. I do not think he was saying, for example, that the content of the math course should not be the content of the math course. In math, you are teaching subject area content that is mathematical in nature. What we are talking about when we say foundation skills will be integrated into all curricula and that these will be reflected in standard tests might be best described this way. The math subject has a content. It is mathematics that is the content. I do not think Roblin disagrees with that. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. But when the students in their math do a problem that requires a written answer, the foundation skills of good communication will be expected to apply.

Curricular integration is an instructional approach--and I underscore the words “instructional approach”--that this government supports. At the end of the day, however, we have got to ensure that the students achieve the subject area outcomes. They have to know computation; they have to know problem solving, and they have to know when they are writing a history essay or a science essay that they need to be able to communicate.

They not only need to be able to communicate, but they need to be able to communicate in a wide variety of areas: technology, verbal communications, written communications, all aspects of communications, human relations, technology and problem solving must permeate the curricula in all subject areas, our move to a curriculum with an applied focus. Students will have the opportunity to apply learning in a multidisciplinary way.

It used to be that in some schools, and it still is in some schools, that people did not worry about whether skills were emphasized in each area. It did not matter if a child, in delivering an answer verbally, did not deliver that answer verbally well except in language arts class. We are now saying it matters that that child delivers that answer verbally well in all his or her classes. That is an interdisciplinary approach, and I do not think that Roblin had any difficulty with that type of approach, and I do not think he was meaning what I hear the member indicating she interprets him as meaning.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): First of all, I think I am on the right line, Special Education Review. I have had letters about the Special Education Review. When will it happen? Can we expect it before September? Will it be during the summer months? Will it be in the fall? When are we looking at the Special Education Review?

Mrs. McIntosh: The answer is soon. I say that with all the desire that I have to indicate I wish I could give him a specific date. We have been talking and working towards a special needs review for about 18 months now. I think we probably would even have maybe started it a bit sooner except that we had the field indicating to us that they were working on the changes we have got going now, and there are a lot of them that want to participate in this review.

While we have been preparing for it, we have been sort of identifying issues and concerns and trends so that when we do begin the review, which I hope we will be announcing soon, like maybe even before this session is over, we will have some well-thought-out terms of reference as to what needs to be examined. We started seriously looking at an implementation date in January of this year, January of '96, which was when we started talking about, we must do this as quickly as we can because we have seen the system growing in its acceptance of students in the schools who in the past were not normally there. At the same time, we have seen the system indicating that as they accept these students, they have concerns and needs that have to be addressed for them to properly fulfill their tasks.

I think actually the schools and school boards have done an amazingly good job as society has moved away from institutional lifestyles to community integration, but I think we do need to have some terms of reference, some parameters, some goals, some guidelines, some direction that can be provided to schools and school divisions as they adjust to having a student population that includes a handicapped child, a gifted child, a child with unique learning problems, behavioural disorders, a wide variety of students who in the past were not always there or, if they were there, were not there in the numbers that they are today.

Mr. Kowalski: I am wondering if the minister could help me find some information I am looking for in regard to special needs students. Places like St. Amant and similar institutions, when integration of special needs students in the public school system, I believe they saw a drop in the need for their facilities and saw a drop in population.

I have heard comments that as of late they are seeing increases in their residents. Although I do not have any statistics, only just personal accounts, people indicate that possibly one of the reasons is that because either the resources were not in their particular division or overall in the system that what we are going to is going backwards from integration and students with special needs are going back into those institutional care situations.

Has the department looked at this? Has it looked at the population at places like St. Amant and similar institutions about students that have integrated and then because their needs were not being met have left the public school system to go back into institutional care? The cost, if you look overall, it is not just the Education department, but the overall government costs, whether it is from Health or whatever, sometimes it is more expensive for those students to be in those institutions. Do you have any information about those situations?

* (1610)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, St. Amant is actually decreasing in the enrollment of school-age children, but it does have people there who came in as children who are now in their early 20s. They are into adulthood now. That number is larger.

What you are seeing is a shift in the age make-up at St. Amant. Where you would have, in the past, a larger number of younger children than older, that has now flipped. There are people who prefer the St. Amant-type setting to a community school-type setting, and I think that will always be the case. There are some children whose needs are such that their families feel they are safer and happier and better cared for at St. Amant, rather than put them through the struggle of trying to integrate them into a setting where their usual multihandicaps really prevent them from being able to participate, so we have that demographic makeup. Also, at Marymound School, which the member may be familiar with, the enrollment there has decreased somewhat as well, and those students have a lot of behavioural problems there. They have a smaller number of students there than they used to have.

The Special Education Review, when we do strike it, we hope, will, in terms of parameters of that review, take a systematic examination of many of the factors that impact on the quality of school-based special education programs and services. It will not give priority to any one category of student. Attention needs to be given to the impact of special education policies, programs and services on all the students, because we are concerned with them all and they will be there together if they are in an integrated setting.

The review will operate in a context that acknowledges the roles and responsibilities of schools, divisions and districts, the department, other government departments, other agencies, in the integration of special needs policies, programs and services in the province, and it will have to address current needs, potentially long-term needs, major issues and recommend specific strategies to strengthen the student learning opportunities and outcomes. So we will have goals attached to the review, and they will fit, I think, with some of the questions that are coming forward.

I do not know if you were in the other Estimates yesterday when I talked about the dollars that are being transferred from Health to Education and Health to Family Services. Were you in the other room at that point or were you here?

Mr. Kowalski: I was in the other room.

Mrs. McIntosh: Okay. It will be in Hansard. I just draw your attention to it.

Mr. Kowalski: In planning for this educational review, are you at the point where you have decided the membership of that review committee? I am talking about maybe not the persons but sectorally. Will it be from Manitoba association of students with disabilities? Will you have representatives? From what sectors will it be, and the number you are looking at, who will be on that review committee?

Mrs. McIntosh: Obviously, we do not have the individual names. The number of groups that could be involved if it were to be strictly and absolutely representative would be extremely numerous, because there are just tons of advocacy groups around that could be called upon and probably will be called upon in some way during the review. Now, as to which ones will actually be on the review, I am not able to say, but I can indicate we are planning to see this review committee composed of three major components, a steering committee, the project researchers, and a technical support committee.

So we see that the steering committee would probably be senior officials from the department, not just the Department of Education but also the Department of Health, with senior government officials, deputy minister level, assistant deputy minister level, probably in all likelihood the director from the Children and Youth Secretariat and three additional members from outside the department would also likely sit on the committee. That will give proposals for planning, reporting on the review, establishing, allocating funding for the study and resolving any issues that could arise during the course of the review and make sure that the recommendations of the study are brought to the attention of the minister for appropriate training.

Project researchers, I think that is pretty obvious and self-descriptive and the technical support committee again is probably fairly clear.

The consultative process will be broad. All advocacy groups, educational organizations and educational institutions will be given an opportunity to provide data that will be used, that will work with them because they are, in many cases, either the deliverers or the guardians or family members or caregivers of special needs students. We also want to hear from those people who may not work directly with special needs students but who may be in school settings with them, either as classmates or school volunteers or teachers. Particularly we will need the input of those educators who currently work with special needs students. Where we have nurses in place, or paraprofessionals in place to deal with medically fragile children in the schools, we need to hear from them, we want to hear from them because they have information about how things are working or not working that we need to access.

We obviously cannot have all of them on the committee, but when I say we expect this to take about 18 months to complete, that is why. That is because there is such wide-ranging coverage that needs to be done to make sure that we do not miss input from any of these particular people with knowledge.

Mr. Kowalski: If I missed this in the minister's answer, please correct me. What I am interested in is the process. Will there be first the release of a document for people who are interested in presenting to the committee to react to, or will there first be some kind of hearings, committee hearings, public hearings and a document that will come out of that, and then another opportunity to--what will be the process?

* (1620)

Mrs. McIntosh: We do not see ourselves putting out a paper. We hope to end up at the end with a paper. We will be sending out, just so that people are not operating in the dark, we will be setting out purpose and goals, we will be setting out parameters of the review. Then we will be not holding public hearings but, rather, having conversations and dialogues and working with groups in a consultative way as opposed to a formal hearing way. Any document that is concerned or associated with the review is something that we expect to see evolve at the end of the review, that we will have a paper because of the work that has been done, giving us guidance and direction and recommendations.

So we will say, here is what we are looking to achieve. Here is the situation, folks, and then working with them over that 18 months to 2 years hope to have evolved at the end of that direction for government to follow.

Mr. Kowalski: I could imagine some of the reasons for and against having public input, public hearings and that, but what I am concerned about is not so much from the advocate groups. In the public at large, there are certain perceptions out there about the effect of special needs students in the classroom on their child. I think there is also academic research that blows away some of those perceptions.

The way I could see it happening is first a release of some information that blows away some of the perceptions about special needs students lowering standards in the class or taking time away from teachers. There have been studies I know of that have shown that students in a classroom with special needs students sometimes have become more open to people with differences, and I think that that information, that academic information, that research information has to be put out in the public view so we are not getting presentations from the public that are just reactions to perceptions that are not true, that there is research out there.

Also, by not giving an opportunity for those who are not in those special advocate groups to present and bring that view forward that it is maybe holding their child back or taking resources away from their child, I think we are missing an opportunity to inform them and debunk some of those thoughts out there. I am wondering if there is even an opportunity for a limited input or limited hearings from the public who maybe are not parents of special needs students but that have some perceptions out there that should be heard by this review committee.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member raises a point that I think I referred to earlier, but I draw his attention back to it. When I indicated that attention needs to be given to the impact of special education policies, programs and services on all students, all means those students who are included in the system with, quote, mainstreamed or integrated students. We will be asking questions such as: What factors must be present for the existence of a supportive learning environment that accommodates the needs of all, and I underline all, students and leads to successful student outcomes?

I think I indicated, although maybe I did not, when I indicated the types of people we needed to talk to that I included in that list of groupings--people who are in the company of the special needs students, whether they be classmates or volunteers in the school, people who are not a family member or a caregiver or guardian of some sort of the child, but people who are in that child's company--the classmates in particular would be the ones that as Minister of Education I would be most concerned about. I want to make sure that some of the things the member referred to that are commonly perceived notions are not in fact causing detrimental effects on any student. My basic philosophy of learning is I say, first of all, schools are for students. Everyday I come in I say schools are for students. Just remember that schools are for students. I sort of talk to myself, and I think as long as I do not answer myself I am still relatively sane.[interjection] I missed that and it is probably just as well.

The second thing that needs to be a focus in the department in all that we do is that all students have the right to learn in a positive atmosphere free from distraction. The other side of that is that all teachers have the right to teach in a positive atmosphere free from distraction. Unfortunately, in the real world those two things do not always occur, but I think it always should be a goal. The handicapped child should have that opportunity, and the children who are in the room with that handicapped child should also have that opportunity. So whatever we come out with at the end of the review, we will be providing opportunities. What form they will take, Gary, I do not know.

(Mr. Frank Pitura, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

We do know we have to connect with a wide variety of people, and we would like it to be a more relaxed atmosphere as opposed to the public hearing, glare of camera kind of review. Although, I am not ruling it out, I just think from my perspective at this point, I think it is unlikely that we go to public hearings.

Mr. Kowalski: One recommendation or comment I will make about the review, one element, the paraprofessionals. The paraprofessionals have a lot to do with special needs students, yet at present to be a paraprofessional the only qualification is you get a job. There is absolutely no requirement for any type of course, any licensing, any standard. You just get hired and you are a paraprofessional. In the meantime there are courses out there. I am presently taking one now for interest. I am taking a paraprofessional diploma course right now, and I am working with a lot of these paraprofessionals and find them to be very dedicated people who, in the course I am taking at the University of Winnipeg, are accumulating a great deal of knowledge that they are sometimes not respected for. One thing they might want to take a look at in this review committee is, should there be a standard for paraprofessionals in Manitoba, because as they are called on more and more to do things, and there is a certain amount of politics involved in this, I am talking about small “p” politics, within the educational structure between teachers and administrators. At at one time paraprofessionals, years ago, were viewed as possibly taking jobs away from teachers. Now teachers very much appreciate the presence of paraprofessionals in the classroom. I think we have to look, re-examine with the integration, the requirements to be a paraprofessional in the Manitoba educational system. I hope the review task force or committee will take a look at that element.

I will just go on to another subject. I received a letter--

* (1630)

An Honourable Member: Just do not make it 25 questions.

Mr. Kowalski: No, no. I received a letter from someone who was concerned about low-incidence funding, and the letter is from someone in the Rhineland School Division. The letter says that in the past they have received a lot of support as a result of low-incidence funding, and there is a concern in this letter about the end to the supports and the end to the funding. Could you tell me where the money for this low-incidence funding--what line in the budget--where it comes from, and has there been any decrease in that? Is there any danger of a decrease in low-incidence funding?

Mrs. McIntosh: The staff will check that, and, while they do, I will answer your first concern there.

It really is a concern about the paraprofessionals. We have money being transferred from Health right now to Family Services, which may address the concern the member is bringing forward; $250,000 this year, because of the secretariat, is going from Health to Family Services to provide training and ongoing supervision of health care routines which may be delegated to nonhealth care professionals or paraprofessionals working with children in the community.

Teachers are not required to, and teachers are not expected to, carry out health care routines in the schools. I do not know if it is happening. It may be, but that is the way it is. They should be free to teach, in my opinion, and I am sure the opinion of teachers as well.

School divisions can access that fund for the training of paraprofessionals or people who are going to do health-care type work, nonprofessionals, in the school. School divisions can access that fund from the Children's Special Services in the Department of Family Services. It is new. It is just starting, and I think we need to keep building on that because there are many chores that need to be done with handicapped children. Some of them are actually relatively simple, but others are deceptively simple.

Some are, as I indicated, diapering, which is awkward and cumbersome but maybe not technically difficult. There might be other types of things. Pummelling, which looks kind of straightforward, may require a particular technique. Then, of course, there are the true medical things that you really do have to have somebody with a little more skill and knowledge--the injection of medications intravenously, for example, catheterization. Those types of things require a health-care type training.

We are moving in that direction--to address the concern the member has mentioned--because we have heard that concern expressed from the field.

In terms of the details for Level I, Level II, and Level III, that would come under School Grants in 16.5(d) and would require--I just checked with my staff here, and, as I was asking them, I remembered, so I will give you the answer there.

There has been a decrease in Level I funding and an increase in Level II and III funding for an overall amount that is about the same, the amount of funding. There is virtually no change in special needs funding from last year to this, but the Level I rates went down by 2 percent. In other words, they went from $43.7 million down to $42.8 million, and Level II and Level III rates went up by about the same amount of money. Now, some of that was due to increased student participation in Level II and III. The net result is that the amount given overall is virtually unchanged from last year, but you can see that internal shift, more money to the higher needs, slightly less money to the lower-level needs.

Mr. Kowalski: The funding for Level I is done on a per-capita basis, I understand. If I remember from last year's Estimates, for the independent private schools, it is done on a per-capita basis, that there is an assumption that in an independent school there are Level I students in there. Now, does that mean because the rate has gone down, the amount of money going to independent schools for Level I students has decreased this year?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, that is not how the funding formula works because it is based on their expenditures, not on their revenues, and the Level II and Level III students, again, they are a case-by-case analysis in any school, whether it is an independent school or a public school or wherever the student happens to be.

Mr. Kowalski: I have a question on standards testing. In regard to standards testing in private and independent funded schools, the marking of those tests, who does the marking of those tests?

Mrs. McIntosh: It will be central marking to mark all the standards tests and everybody will write them. It does not matter whether it is an independent school or a public school and they provided us markers as well. That is the difference between a partly funded school and a nonfunded school. The partly funded independent schools have to abide by our curricula, hire our certified teachers and abide by standards exams, et cetera, just as you asked. The nonfunded schools, of course, are truly independent but anybody who wants to qualify for a partial funding has to abide by those criteria.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Kowalski: Last year in Estimates on this line, I asked for a list of members of the Committee on Education Finance, and I do not remember receiving it. Okay, I may grant you that it could have come, but I do not remember ever receiving that. Can I get a list of Advisory Committee on Education Finance, a list of the members on that committee?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, indeed, and I apologize to the member. We handed in all the documents we thought had been asked for and I think that was one we overlooked, but the staffperson who will know the answer is in the room and, hopefully, within the next 10 or 15 minutes we can table that advice. Again, my apologies for not having submitted it with the other documents.

* (1640)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, we look forward to seeing that document tabled.

I wanted to ask the minister about the Special Education Review. Earlier this week in the House, I asked some questions about that and my concerns were that this Special Education Review had been contained in the most recent annual report as being underway, that it has been I think now in three Estimates books. The minister in her response in the House said, I believe, that she had been consulting with stakeholders over that period of time. So I wonder if the minister could tell us who she has been consulting with and where and when and how this has been accomplished and why it has taken 18 months.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, this review has been underway in terms of planning and structure, et cetera, as the member correctly identified, for about a year and a half now, and the member has asked who I have met with? I cannot possibly list them all, but I will attempt to list as many as I can recall off the top of my head without going back through my appointment book.

Aside from about 48 of the 57 school boards in Manitoba who have all mentioned something about the issue, I have met with several parent councils on the issue. I have met with the Assiniboine-South School Division Advisory council on special needs, which is a multidisciplinary group of educators, teachers, parents, medical people, counsellors involved with that division. I have met with the Association for Bright Children. I have met with the Special Education Administrators. I have met with the Council for Exceptional Children. I have met frequently, many times, with the deaf and hard-of-hearing people, with the advisory council for the deaf. I have met with the ideology people. I have met with speech therapists. I have met with the Manitoba association of resource teachers. I have met with the guidance counsellors' association. I have met with the people from the CNIB.

I have met with several institutional programs, repeatedly, on an ongoing basis with places like Marymound and St. Amant. I have been out to those places, spent time in them. Oh, let us see who else? I have met with the--[interjection] Yes, I mentioned I have been out to St. Amant several times. I have met with the ministers, of course, who work with the Children and Youth Secretariat. I have met with parents of children with learning disabilities. I have met with some of the parents who send their children to the Laureate Academy. I have met with some of the people who work in the hospitals. I have met with people from the Shriners hospital. I have met with the people from the Variety Club. I have met with the special needs co-ordinators from five or six of the divisions. I have been to visit the fetal alcohol syndrome special needs class at David Livingstone School. I have been to see the integrated blind and autistic students in the inner city schools of Winnipeg. I have been to--let us see, where else have I been?

I have had in to see me the people who work with amputees. I have spent time with the special needs home care co-ordinators who work with multihandicapped children in the home setting. I have worked with--well, I think you probably get the picture. I have done a little bit of consulting. I mean I could list more because I have many, many more that I could list; I just cannot recall them all because I try to do this on a regular basis.

Oh, I have been in communication with some friends of mine who are staff members at the Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre, friends of mine who work with the psychiatric wards that, unfortunately, from time to time, have children in psychiatric care. Their needs are unique and very special. All of those people, of course, have given me ideas and insights as to what they see as needs for the various groups that they represent, and I have spent many hours with these people. When I say meetings, I am not talking about 10 minutes; I am talking about meetings where meaningful dialogue has opportunity to occur.

As well, of course, not to be neglected are the dozens and dozens of parent advisory councils I have met with who are not particularly associated with special needs, but who have children who attend school sometimes with special needs students, and they have made commentary to me about their indications and reflections and observations about the impact of special needs students in the classrooms with their regular children. I have visited in rural schools all around the province, in the North, in the city, in small towns, in communities. I have been in multigrade schools with handicapped children and talked at great length with parents in those schools about how they feel about the interaction, what they see as the pluses and minuses, the pros and cons of those kinds of interactions.

* (1650)

I will indicate the Minister's Advisory Committee on Education Finance, of which I have the membership here. The chairman is Mr. George Buchholz from the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents. He is the chairperson. The alternate representative of the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents is Mr. Don Wiebe. From the Manitoba Teachers' Society, Ms. Diane Beresford. The alternate for the Manitoba Teachers' Society is Mr. Art Reimer. From the Manitoba Association of School Trustees is Carolyn Duhamel. The alternate for Carolyn Duhamel is Gerry MacNeil. From MASBO, the Manitoba Association of School Business Officials is Mr. Dave Bell. His alternate is Gord Olmstead. From the Manitoba Association of Parent Councils, we have Viola Prowse as a citizen member. We have a northern representative; that is Mr. Dan Reagan.

The staffing to the committee is Mr. Jim Glen, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Administration and Finance. He serves as secretary to the committee, and, as well, an ex-officio member is the Assistant Deputy Minister of School Programs Division, Carolyn Loeppky.

Those people are members of the Advisory Committee of Education Finance. They have been in place for approximately five years. The membership will alter from time to time, but they are, the deputy informs me, a very good, well-functioning committee. As you can see, it is a representative committee representing the various organizations with the two department people as staff.

Mr. Chairman, I will table this because the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has had to go back to the other committee, so there, I read it into the record, but you can have the paper too.

Ms. Friesen: The list of consultations that the minister read out I can see in the context of a minister preparing herself in this area for a review that she wants to make. I think 18 months is a long time for people in the field, and we are looking at another two years. What I want to put on the record is the very, very serious concerns of people in the field or in the schools and in other areas of society who are seeing a great growth in costs in this area, Winnipeg No. 1 in particular, St. James School Division.

I am sure the minister is aware people had believed that this study had begun, having seen it in the annual report, having seen it for two years in Estimates. I think there was a general belief that departmental planning had gone perhaps to be more specific.

I would look for some indication from the minister of what was done in those two past years where the Special Needs Review was included in the Estimates. Was there staff time spent on it? What was the end result of that? What was the product of that and how has that helped us to get to where we are now?

Another thing that I am interested in in this area is the hiring of people for this review. The minister mentioned three parts to it. The first part would be a steering committee composed, I assume from the way she talked, of existing civil servants. There were then project researchers and a technical support committee, so I am interested in how many people are being hired, what the staffing levels are going to be for these areas and where we find them in the budget and some indication of what was done in that Special Needs Review line in the past two years.

Mrs. McIntosh: 16.2(c) is the area of assessment under which that should properly come. I do indicate to the member that the staff indeed have been working hard as she implies in her question when she says, I assume your staff have been working and indeed they have. They worked very hard and they have done a tremendous amount of preparation for the review. They have established terms of reference, parameters, a whole draft document in terms of the types of things that we need to have for goals, the purpose, the parameters. I believe I read much of that into the record for the member for The Maples earlier today, so I will not repeat myself on that. I did read for him, in his questioning on this topic, the parameters, and it may have been before the member for Wolseley arrived, but those have been read into the record today.

The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) was asking questions earlier so you have heard the parameters and the goals then, so you know I have already answered the question. I do not see any need to sort of reanswer it except to confirm that indeed over the last two years, the last 18 months, the staff has worked hard to develop goals, parameters, et cetera, which I read into the record earlier and, as I say, will not waste the time of the committee repeating. I will indicate that the member is urging a quick study and I, of course, would like to have the study done as quickly as possible.

It is contrary to her request on the arbitration study, which she wants to be a slow study, and sometimes I get the feeling, and I may be wrong, that I am sort of damned if I do, damned if I do not. If I take lots of time to prepare the field for a study and take lots of time figuring out exactly how it should be done and then lots of time doing a thorough job, I am criticized for going too slow. If I move swiftly and put out documents in record time with tight time frames for conclusion, then I am accused of moving too swiftly. I am sure if I walked on water, I would be accused of not knowing how to swim.

But I do indicate that we would have liked to have had this review underway earlier, as well. One of the reasons we did not have it underway, and I will be expecting some indication from the member that this is exactly what she wanted me to do, was that we had a lot of projects on the go in the field. The member has been saying repeatedly, over and over, that we have too much on the go, that we should slow down and quit trying to take on so many things. In fact, just the other day in this Chamber--I think if she checks Hansard she will see--she indicated that I should not be putting anything more on the system. The system was already overburdened with too many ideas for change. I am hoping that she then will understand that with that as the criticism from the opposition, to not be putting any more impetus for change into the system at the current time, that while I was following my own agenda, I was at the same time harmonizing very nicely with her time lines, as well.

The review will take 18 months at least, I am sure, to complete. Maybe it is possible to get it done faster, and, certainly, we will try to move swiftly, but we need to look at staffing level, we need to look at a wide complexity of issues, and they are interwoven with many different departments. We have reviewed literature on trends. We have reviewed the Winnipeg 1 review. We have a lot of research documentation available, and I believe we are in good readiness to be able to announce very soon the structure of this committee and the details that would go along with that.

* (1700)

When we have those details available, we will be pleased and proud to be able to announce them to the people of Manitoba which, of course, includes the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I do not believe there were any accusations in what I said. The minister chose to see that. That is her choice.

What I want to do is to put simply on the record that there is a great sense of urgency about this in the public school system, that there is a great sense that there is overall a capping of funds, and we can look at that issue when we come to that line. I am conveying to the minister that that is what people in the field believe. That is what parents are believing is happening. The minister says the overall funds for special needs are remaining the same, and we will look at how those are distributed later.

I am conveying to the minister what the serious urgency is and is felt in the field, and I am sure that having talked to as many people as she had, she must be very aware of that. I do not think there was any urgency to remove Canadian history. I do not think there were great urgencies about many elements of some of the changes that the minister has wanted to make quickly.

I do believe that there was a very seriously felt urgency about the expansion of special needs students in the schools and the cost to the school divisions.

Point of Order

Mrs. McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just because I think it is important that we be accurate, I have not seen a sense of urgency about Canadian history. In fact, I have slowed that process down, and I think that, you know, it is important in a point of order that--I know it is a dispute over the facts--that we try to be factual.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Ms. Friesen: Same point of order.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I have ruled on it.

* * *

Ms. Friesen: I had my hand up before you spoke, Mr. Chairman.

I am absolutely delighted the minister has slowed this down. I am continuously puzzled and very concerned that it took almost two years for the Minister of Education to hear those voices from the field. My concern here is to put on the record--

An Honourable Member: . . . you know damn well. I am sorry. Carry on. Carry on.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister want to put some more comments on the record?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes, if I--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. If all honourable members asking questions or giving answers would put their comments through the Chair, please.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member for Wolseley has kindly offered to allow me to put some comments on the record, and I do appreciate that because the member for Wolseley has asked the questions that she is just stating incorrect conclusions from. I actually feel quite resentful that she has asked the questions about Canadian history before in another venue. I have answered them and explained that the slowing down of Canadian history was not for the reasons that she has implied, was not caving in to public pressure, but rather was for the reasons that I gave her at the time. She either did not hear my answers then or did not understand my answers then or has chosen to ignore those answers and then come to the microphone here and state incorrectly, inaccurately, that it took me two years to slow down after public pressure.

First of all, I have been minister for 11 months, and I have indicated to her exactly why the process was slowed down. I would appreciate her being a little more honest in her responses because I think that she did know, when she put her statements on the record, why I had slowed the process down and chose to put on the record that it was for some other reason. I do not think that is very nice.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the minister has slowed down the process because the new curriculum is not ready.

Mrs. McIntosh: Exactly. You said that I had slowed it down because of public pressure.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley has finished her question?

Ms. Friesen: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister did respond informally that that is exactly right, and I am correct to say that. Is the minister saying that there was no public pressure, no letters from the social science teachers, no letters to the editor which said, Madam Minister, slow this down because you have not shown us what the new curriculum is? I remember very distinctly, for example, asking that exact question in the House, but perhaps the minister does not consider that to be public pressure. I think the minister is very defensive upon this one.

Mrs. McIntosh: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not defensive. I am just interested in a little honesty. I am just interested in a little openness. I am just tired of seeing things twisted. When I said that the implementation of the new history protocol would be delayed a year because the new curriculum was not ready, I said that. That is what I meant. That is what I told the member. The fact that letters came in on the subject, which they did, has nothing to do with the fact that the curriculum was not ready. The member comes to the microphone and says, is the minister saying that she did not get any letters, as if getting letters would cause me to change my mind.

The member, because she listens to every special interest group that walks past her caucus room door and tries to be everything to everybody all the time therefore becoming a jack of all trades and master of none, does not understand that some people know how to make up their own minds. We listen to the people, and do not confuse this and twist this, we listened to the people. We read all the correspondence and, where the people make suggestions that make sense to us, we are quite willing to be flexible and adapt and respond to those needs. But that does not mean that we automatically respond to every request that is put to us, and sometimes we make decisions that lead to a similar outcome for a different reason. The member knows that.

So her earlier comments were deliberately and consciously manipulated to give a different impression than reality has, and those who observe her know that she does this. It is not a pleasant characteristic, but we endure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: If I might, just for a minute here, I would ask all the members around the table, those asking questions, those giving answers, it is ten after five and it is getting a little bit late in the day. Perhaps feelings are running a little bit high because perhaps we are getting hungry maybe. I would just ask everybody to take a deep breath and choose your words carefully.

Ms. Friesen: It seemed to me that the minister did have representations from the social science teachers groupasking her to delay the introduction of the new Canadian history because the new curriculum was not ready. I did ask that question in the House. Why does the minister not delay this, because the new one is not ready and people have not had a chance to see it. What I understand the minister saying is that questions in the House, letters from interested citizens, letters from the teachers who were involved in this, had no bearing upon what she said and what she decided.

It seemed to me that was what the minister was saying, and that is where the difficulty has arisen. It seemed to me, I would classify that as some form of public pressure. Clearly the minister does not, and that seems to be where the difficulty is arising. I do not know if the minister wants to pursue this any further under this line. We certainly can, but is it that the minister does not assume that questions in the House and letters from organizations are indeed public pressure?

* (1710)

Mrs. McIntosh: I think, when a person becomes elected and governs, one as a governing body has to make decisions. When one is elected as an opposition, one is in a situation where no decisions need be made. An opposition member has the luxury of being able to take any position without having to be accountable for it, because they are not in a position to be able to implement any of those decisions.

The governing body, if it is a responsible governing body, will listen to all points of view put forward. Letters, questions in Question Period, questions that come forward here at the Estimates table, and certainly we have had some very good suggestions made here at the Estimates table that I have taken under consideration, one from the member for The Maples and one from the member for St. James, who have made some good points as we have gone through this. So we receive questions, we receive opinion, we receive direct lobbying from people who have special interests who come and say, my interest is this and this and it is a compelling interest to me, we want you to listen. We listen. A responsible government listens, a responsible government reaches out and consults. A responsible government does not just sit back passively and wait to be talked to or wait to be advised. A responsible government goes out and says to the people, what do you think, how do you feel? Do you have any input, do you have any feedback that you could provide me that would help me in my decision making?

But at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, the member makes a decision based upon the member’s judgment, the member’s knowledge, the information that has been presented to the member. The member does not make a decision based upon how loud the screaming was or how hot the pressure was or how squeaky the wheel was, at least a responsible member does not make a decision that way. A responsible member examines all that has been heard, all that has been read, all that has been presented, and then makes up his or her own mind without, if he is really a good member or if she is really a good member, feeling they have to make a decision because some group lobbied them.

What I am saying, as far as history is concerned, is that I rather like the idea of new upgraded curricula that are relevant to Canadian experience, that include pre-European Canadian history, that condense into 10 years the work that used to be taught in 11, so there is more concentration, more detail, more relevancy taught earlier and more thoroughly. I like the idea that in the last two years of school students can take extra history, enhanced history, more history than they would have been able to take under the current system. I think that is not a bad thing. The member thinks it is a bad thing. We differ.

But for the member to say that my decision to delay the implementation of the new history protocol for one year because the new curricula were not yet ready, to say that I made that decision because people wrote me letters is not to deny that people wrote me letters. When I said, and this is the part that I resent about the style of questioning that comes from the member opposite, I did not make the decision to slow down history because I have been lobbied or because of a pressure group or because of presentations from the history teachers, I made the decision to slow it down because the curricula were not ready.

When the member then comes back and says, is the member then saying she did not get letters, is the member then saying she was not made representation to by the history teachers? No, that is not what I am saying. I heard from the history teachers association, I received letters from history teachers, I received letters from history professors at the university. I got those documentations, and I read them and I considered them and I weighed their merits, and I still feel that the ability to concentrate in the first 10 years what was learned in 11 and then add extra history courses for enhancement at the end with more relevant up-to-date curricula is a better way to provide history for our students than the old way. So rather than cave in, as the saying seems to go, to the pressure, as the saying seems to go, I simply made up my mind in what I hope was a well-reasoned approach to support the initiative laid down by the previous minister, having been in the portfolio for as long as I have now, about 11 months, based upon all the research and documentation put forward by staff that has convinced me that he was indeed correct. If it takes longer to do, I will not speed it up just to get it done in a hurry. We will take the extra time it requires.

So I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue, but I do want the member to understand how decision making is done by this government. I do want the member to understand that if I say I made a decision based upon a time line problem that she is then not to interpret in her mind that statement as meaning that I have not received any correspondence on it or to make that assumption, because it is a wrong assumption, and what is obvious to those who are watching this table is that it does appear the member knows it is a wrong assumption but says it anyhow.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the minister continues to impugn motives. My comments were based upon the fact that I know that she received deputations and delegations saying, minister, you have a time problem here. We have not seen the new curriculum. Hold it. It was a very simple statement. It had no more intent than that and the minister continues to leap to these kinds of somewhat unpleasant conclusions, but that is her choice.

Mrs. McIntosh: The member then is even more inaccurate. We never received letters from the history teachers association saying that we had to slow down because we did not have enough time. We received them saying we should not do it because they did not like it. We never got correspondence saying that we should slow down because they did not have enough time. They wanted to retain the Grade 11 history as compulsory. That was the issue. Now, if she would like to provide for me and perhaps table here in Estimates the letters from the history teachers association saying that the reason they wanted me to slow down was not because they did not want history taught the way we are planning to but strictly and only because it is a time problem, I would be pleased to receive that, because I do not recall receiving it in my files. So if you could bring that tomorrow, I would be grateful. Thank you.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, yes, I will certainly look for that. The minister is interpreting time. I said time line. I believe that the teachers said to the minister that there was a problem because the new curriculum did not exist, nobody had seen it, and the old one was being abandoned, that there was a time problem there in graduation issues and there was a time line problem because nobody had seen the new curriculum. I want to be quite clear on that. I am not trying to do anything that the minister seems to be impugning to me and it was a very straightforward comment.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, if the member is referring to letters from people who were talking about the whole process of implementation, the time line then is correct. But if she is talking as she was about history teachers, history teachers were writing to express concern that they did not want Senior 3 history dropped. If the member is now no longer talking about history teachers but is now talking about ordinary teachers concerned with a wide variety of time lines problems, then I have those letters. But she referred to history teachers, I believe, and it is the history teachers' documentation she refers to, where she says the history teachers wrote to say they were concerned about the time line, that I am looking to have her table.

* (1720)

This has happened before with this particular member and me. It does not seem to happen with some of the others. I do not know why because I have no problem answering questions for the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), a lot of other people, but with this member somehow, this seems to happen quite a lot.

I think it is isolating one issue, using information out of context. The entire matter in context rests on the cornerstones of reform. We want rigorous relevant curricula. We want appropriate assessment. We believe in involving parents and choices, including making options compulsory if they wish, and we believe in allowing students, as they approach the midpoint of their senior years, to make choices as they begin to mature into adults.

The social studies group, however, did not ask us to delay. The social studies group asked us to change policy, but we did delay, dovetailing our work with the Western Protocol, which is why the curriculum was slowed down, because we want it to be dovetailed with the others in the west who are doing just as we are doing, Saskatchewan, the NDP neighbours to the west, Alberta, British Columbia, Northwest Territories and the Yukon, all doing as we are doing, working together to develop this new Western Protocol.

This is not a knee-jerk response to public pressure as the member tries to imply. The member tried to imply it in her public statements on the issue, as well, when she congratulated me for finally listening to the people. I am indicating to you that we listened to the people, the people being the history teachers largely who wrote to us, but our conclusion was different from theirs.

The member confuses listening with agreeing, and good government demands practicality. We slowed down because the curriculum was not ready because we are trying to get it together with all the others in western Canada who want to do it the same way we do.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 2. School Programs (a) Division Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $250,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $61,200--pass.

2.(b) Manitoba School for the Deaf (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,633,700.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask about the connection between this section and section 16.2(g), which also has administrative aspects for the School for the Deaf. I just wondered how these two sections of the department gel.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the Manitoba School for the Deaf has its own line because it is a school. Like, it is a bonafide school. The principal of the school reports to the Director of Student Services.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could give us an update on the moving plans for this school. We spent a considerable amount of time discussing this last time. My understanding is that the new school in St. James is being renovated, or that was the anticipation, and there was the anticipation also of either the purchase of a separate building near the school for residential facilities or some incorporation into the new school of residential facilities. So I am just looking for an update.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the decision that was made was to renovate the existing school, or the school in which the learning experience will take place, and it has been great. There were some initial apprehensions as people moved from an area of familiarity to a new area, but the members have been influential in developing plans for the building, their building consensus for space allocations, and designing appropriate technology and residence in the school. So it has been going along very, very well.

I would like to introduce, if I could, Mr. Chair, while I am on this topic, Howard Miller, who is currently serving as principal of the school, and Bert Cenerini, whose title is Director of Student Services. We have all the titles, and I sometimes get them mixed up. Sorry, Bert. They have done a lot of work with the parents, staff and students in this school. So the parents seem to be very pleased. The students are excited about the potential date for moving in which we hope will be early in the fall. We are not sure of the exact date yet, but they are looking forward to it, especially the new science room. They really like that.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley, with a very short comment or question.

Ms. Friesen: It is a question. I am wondering if the minister is anticipating any increase or decrease in enrollment. It is April now, so that next year's enrollment should be at least becoming clear. Is there an increase or a decrease? Again, the same question really for the residential facility. I understood the minister to say the residential facility is included in the old Alexander Ross School. It is not the purchase of a separate building.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We have been looking at a variety of alternatives, and we looked at separate off-site residence, but the parents wanted on-site residence. Since they are their children and buying houses or renovating--you know, six of one, half a dozen of the other in terms of cost--we opted to go for what the parents and students wanted. It also in terms of a government facility, it is convenient to have it all housed in one building. The number of students anticipated in the school enrollment for next year will be about 82, which is similar to what it was this year if I recall. This year it was 84 or something.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.

The time being 5:30, committee rise.