STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCILS OF WEST ST CATHARINES SCHOOLS
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, LINCOLN DISTRICT
SECONDARY SCHOOL COUNCIL CHAIRS, LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, BROCK SECONDARY TEACHERS' UNIT
LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 6, LINCOLN
ONTARIO PRINCIPALS' ASSOCIATION
ST CATHARINES AND DISTRICT COUNCIL OF WOMEN
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS'ASSOCIATION, LINCOLN COUNTY
QUAKER ROAD SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL
LINCOLN COUNTY CATHOLIC SCHOOL BOARD
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 36, WENTWORTH
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION WELLAND UNIT
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION NIAGARA SOUTH DISTRICT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE/ONTARIO
PARENTS AGAINST CORRUPT TEACHING
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS' ASSOCIATION, LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
CONTENTS
Wednesday 22 October 1997
Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, Mr Snobelen /
Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration de la qualité de l'éducation,
projet de loi 160, M. Snobelen
School Advisory Councils of West St Catharines Schools
Mrs Barbara Paris
Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Lincoln District
Mr Brian Feschuk
Mr Roy Paluoja
Mr Uwe Kretschmann
Mr Richard MacKinnon
Norfolk Board of Education
Ms Lori Burroughs
Mr Peter Rasokas
Mr Ken Sheppard
Secondary school council chairs, Lincoln County Board of Education
Mrs Liz Palmieri
Mrs Jane Branchflower
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Brock secondary teachers unit
Mr Larry Newton
Lincoln County Board of Education secondary school principals and vice-principals
Ms Joanne Bascom
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 6, Lincoln
Mr Bill Brown
Ontario Principals' Association
Mr Lance Gianelli
Mr Paul Kelly
Mrs Marlene De Rose
St Catharines and District Council of Women
Ms Milica Kovacevich
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Lincoln County
Mrs Karen Dunn
Mr Tom Purser
Mrs Salli MacDonald
Quaker Road School Advisory Council
Mr Greg Reid
Concerned Students Coalition
Mr Paul Empringham
Ms Erin Coholan
Ms Shona Maggio
Mr Blair Wiley
Lincoln County Catholic School Board
Mrs Lorna Costantini
Ms Kathy Burtnik
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 36, Wentworth
Ms Lynn Phelan
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Welland unit
Mrs Patricia Vernal
Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Niagara South District
Mr Dale Ford
Urban Development Institute/Ontario
Mr Stephen Kaiser
Mr Robert Clark
Parents Against Corrupt Teaching
Mr Jack Huisman
Elementary Principals' Association, Lincoln County Board of Education
Ms Janet Savard
Ms Nancy Hartwell
Mrs Susan Bistrovich
Holy Cross Secondary School
Mrs Connie Tracey
Ms Erin Coholan
Ms Shona Maggio
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London South / -Sud PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer, Legislative Research Service
STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ PERMANENT DE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE
Wednesday 22 October 1997 Mercredi 22 octobre 1997
The committee met at 1000 in the Royal Canadian Legion, St Catharines.
EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION
Consideration of Bill 160, An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): Good morning, members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen. This is a continuation of the hearings of the administration of justice committee and its consideration of Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. The committee is most pleased to be in the city of St Catharines. This is the first visit to this city by this committee since the election in 1995.
The parliamentary assistant, Mr Smith, has a statement to make.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Just very briefly, Mrs McLeod had asked for some clarification with respect to the relationship between Bill 160 and Bill 136 as it applies to non-teaching personnel. I'll simply table the response to that question this morning, if I could, for the committee's consideration.
SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCILS OF WEST ST CATHARINES SCHOOLS
The Chair: Our first presentation is from Barbara Paris or Sandra Ward. Good morning. Could you please identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard -- they're recording everything we say -- and then proceed with your presentation.
Mrs Barbara Paris: Good morning, Mr Chair and committee members. My name is Barbara Paris and I'm here to represent the parent councils of the schools of west St Catharines. To my right is Mrs Sandra Ward, who has helped me with this presentation.
As I said, I'm here to represent the school advisory councils of west St Catharines. This includes six elementary schools and one high school, with a total enrolment of approximately 3,500 children.
We, as concerned parents, have many expectations from the education system and we realize that working together with our child's educators will maximize the potential each of our children has. However, we are unanimous in our feelings that we do not expect the system to be entirely responsible for the education of our children. We strongly believe that this is a shared responsibility. I have personally been a partner with my four children's educators for 19 years and I intend to continue to speak on behalf of committed parents like myself for many years to come.
The sweeping changes proposed in this legislation will have, in our opinion, a detrimental effect on the future education of our children. The rapid passage of this bill is intolerable and our young people in this province deserve so much more than the perfunctory lip-service that this committee has been appointed to hear. We are curious to know why the justice committee was given this task, rather than a body of educational specialists.
Most concerned people agree that education reform is necessary and long overdue. Some of the proposals in this document may have merit, but after having attempted to plough through this document, at $31.50 a copy, one may be hard-pressed to find any. As Mr Snobelen so futuristically prophesied, Bill 160 has indeed created a crisis and, if passed, will chart a course for catastrophe in our education system as we now know it. This is not an act of reformation, but rather a wholesale dismantling of an entire educational system.
If this government truly believes that its vision of educational reform is an exercise designed to save money, then it gives the people of this province no credit whatsoever. The real issue here is control. Money is not the issue. Isn't it a fact that the teacher's pension fund agreed to give Mr Snobelen $800 million and it was refused?
If it is your contention that the current system is too costly, then by all means identify the wasteful areas and cut them. But consider the alternative. If education is too expensive, then what price tag will be placed on illiteracy and ignorance?
If we are forced to allow this government's cabinet to make each and every decision regarding class size, teacher preparation time and the hiring of uncertified teachers, then we may as well send our children to private charter schools. But perhaps that's the government's intention.
Education cannot and must not be akin to an assembly line. Children are individuals and deserve as much encouragement and individual attention as the system will allow. The problem is that the people who know how to accomplish this are not the ones making the decisions. We will no longer have any local forum for discussion regarding bad decisions. Must everything be centralized to be cost-effective?
The rapid rate of growth in our area needs to be assessed and addressed at the local level. We implore you to allow local decisions to be made locally, by the people who know their own community of schools. Parents in large numbers all across this province have volunteered their collective time and effort to serve on local parent advisory councils. The intent, as we understood our role, was to provide local input into our schools. We are now at a loss to understand what our role could possibly be under the terms of this legislation.
The system has been decimated to skeletal proportions now and this government intends to pare that down further. We already have our children selling $20 tins of $3 chocolates to raise funds for items such as computer software and library books because this government has ruthlessly cut funding. How much more do you think you can cut before there is nothing left? We have already witnessed the successful elimination of junior kindergarten, all in the name of improvement.
The passage of this legislation will have an irrevocable effect on teachers, which in turn will filter down to produce demoralization in our classrooms. No one can function effectively in this type of atmosphere. We need committed, concerned teachers who love what they do and do it well in a climate conducive to learning.
This legislation will give the government carte blanche to do what it wants, when it wants and how it wants, without further consultation with anyone. They will exclusively control school boards, funding, classroom size, classroom conditions, taxation, length of the school year, teachers and school councils. In some countries this would be called a dictatorship. Politics has become a series of magical feats, all smoke and mirrors. Remember, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
We, the school councils of West St Catharines, cannot let this government run rampant with our children's future. We cannot entrust these powerful decisions that will have such an adverse effect on our children's educational future to this government. Our children are our most valuable asset. They are the future of this province and this country.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Paris. We have one minute per caucus remaining.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thanks for your presentation. I certainly appreciate your involvement in the schools as parents. Part of what the bill does is allow parents to be more involved in the operation of your own schools, giving advice on matters such as student discipline, student safety and local priorities. You talked about being concerned about local priorities, and certainly we are concerned about that as well. We need parental involvement in that.
Could you give us some advice on what more you could be involved in, how you want to be involved. Part and parcel of the bill is also getting the Education Improvement Commission to come back to us with that type of advice. Being here today, I'd like to know what your response would be to that. How do you see your being involved in making some of the decisions and insisting on making some of the decisions at the local level?
Mrs Paris: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it. As of now, we are just an advisory body. We can advise till we're blue in the face and nobody has to listen to us. In fact, we have no power at all. We get together. There are a lot of very concerned, committed parents who share the responsibility for their children's education who would like to be move involved. I would welcome any suggestions as to how we could be. We would like more input. Perhaps the Education Improvement Commission could have some parents serve on it and have some input.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I suspect that your desire to be involved might stop short of taking over total management of your school, but that's not the area I'm going to ask you about.
I share your concern about the loss of local decision-making. You suggest that one of your very real concerns with Bill 160 is the control that becomes vested not even in the hands of the provincial Legislature but of cabinet, and that's the power to make a whole lot of decisions that affect our children in their classrooms. But money certainly becomes a part of it, because I think that control is there in order to give the government the tools they need to cut costs and to do that by cutting teachers. We learned yesterday that in the performance contract of the deputy minister there is a plan to take $667 million more out of education in the 1998-99 school year. I wonder if you'd want to comment on what you think that might do to your children's education.
Mrs Paris: I don't think it's going to do a lot to improve my children's education. I'm very concerned now. As taxpayers, we are taxed to death in this country and I quite frankly resent the fact that my children have to go out -- it used to be 15 years ago that schools had wish lists of things they would really like to have, if possible, and we used to assist with playgrounds and things like that. Now we're buying equipment in schools that schools desperately need.
This government decided that computers were a big part of schools but it doesn't provide the funds to provide the software to go in those computers. We have legislation that says that computers should be a part of the curriculum, but we don't have the tools to be able to use the computers effectively. My children are out fund-raising to buy necessary things to keep their school running. That gives me great concern.
1010
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Thank you for your presentation. I'm pleased that you're a couple of the people who aren't going to be fooled by what this government is up to with respect to this. I was wondering whether you enjoy a close working relationship with your board in your advisory capacity. I know you say you don't feel as though you have any power at all, but if you do have that working relationship with your board I'm sure they take into consideration the advice that you provide to them. One of the concerns I have is that this is diminishing the power that boards have and centralizing it at Queen's Park. I wonder whether there are fears that you have of that local responsibility being taken away that you're concerned about.
Mrs Paris: I'm very concerned about it. I think school boards will just become puppets for the provincial government. I think they'll just be told what to do and when to do it. I think the local school boards know their own communities best. That's why they're here. I think they're the best people to make decisions for the schools in their local community and it gives me great concern that people who do not live in this area, do not know the special needs of this area, will be making decisions on our behalf.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Paris, for your presentation this morning.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, LINCOLN DISTRICT
The Chair: Our next presentation is the OPSTF, Lincoln district, Brian Feschuk. Future presenters, we have 10 minutes allotted for each presentation. On occasion I have to be somewhat abrupt, which is not my nature, in order to cut one off to keep our schedule, so please excuse me. Mr Feschuk, welcome.
Mr Brian Feschuk: Thank you. My name is Brian Feschuk. I'm with the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, president of our Lincoln district.
Thank you for the opportunity of being here this morning to discuss the implications of Bill 160. I would like to specifically speak about the involvement of teachers in any educational reform, the design of Bill 160 and the fact that there is a lack of involvement of teachers, which is crucial in any successful reform.
Those of us who have been involved intimately in public education for many years have been part of substantial efforts to enhance the quality of education. Today in our Ontario schools, through the efforts of concerned and committed educators, trustees and supervisory officers, working in partnership with parents and members of the wider community, the varied needs of students are being met on a daily basis in a quality teaching environment. Through our cooperative efforts, we have come to realize that successful reforms or improvements in teaching practices which result in improved student performance come through the dedicated commitment of individual teachers.
Educational reforms have failed time and time again, mostly because reform has either ignored teachers or oversimplified what teaching is about. Reforms have often failed because the focus has been too distanced from the real classroom and the real world of teaching and learning. We in teaching have come to realize that there are no quick fixes, but there are quick failures. Decisions made without taking into account the totality of the school environment, particularly the day-to-day implementation strategies or what we call the gritty details of implementation reform, have little chance of success.
Major provincial reforms, in particular the reforms outlined in Bill 160, are doomed to succeed only in the sound bites of provincial politicians or in government's glossy publications. Successful reform will only be achieved with the direct involvement of teachers. Michael Fullan and Andy Hargreaves, in their book, What's Worth Fighting For: Working Together for Your School, developed the argument that "conditions for school improvement in the 1990s are favourable, but we must work on the right things. The right things are rooted in the basic working conditions and lives of teachers, as these in turn affect the learning of students. Improving teachers and schools is the key to improving students."
The components of Bill 160 in its present form fly directly in the face of the opinions of those experts who study school reform and understand the complexity of the task.
Major school reforms most often fail because of poor design, lack of adequate resources, insufficient training of teachers, short time lines, inadequate monitoring, lack of attention to dealing with the roadblocks involved and, more importantly, a failure to maintain enthusiasm and commitment to the project or the reform by teachers. Bill 160 at present lacks the necessary information which will show teachers and the public the details of funding and the resources which will improve the quality of education. Why would you be surprised with the reaction of teachers when the government fails to consult and fails to provide an open process, one with full disclosure of all details of reform?
Outside Bill 160, the government has introduced some quick fixes with which it hoped to convince the public that reforms are under way. I'm confident in saying that successful teachers have no problem at this time with the standardized report card, because we know the only effective reporting system is the continuous communication and dialogue between teachers and parents. Teachers do this very well and in many jurisdictions involve the students in self-evaluation and include them in teacher-parent conferences.
The recently introduced ministry curriculum will help to clarify grade level expectations, but we are curriculum. That's what teachers do, that's what we're all about. We know that success of the curriculum is not in the design, not in the public relations exercise, not in the distribution to the public, but in teacher training and implementation strategies.
If we believe, then, that teachers should be involved in their working conditions, which leads to increased student performance, Bill 160 denies teachers their fundamental right to collective bargaining of their working conditions, which leads to the improvement of students' learning conditions. Limiting the scope of bargaining for teachers is a regressive use of legislative powers. If teachers are expected to be accountable for increased student achievement, Bill 160 should not limit or remove entirely the teachers' ability to negotiate the very conditions and terms of employment which will determine their effectiveness in reaching these goals. Restrictive legislation in this area will restrict teachers' abilities to focus on the right things.
Collective bargaining should not be portrayed as a negative force in education, but as beneficial in terms of conditions that improve learning, such as class size, academic and social support services, academic resources, preparation time and teacher training opportunities.
1020
System reforms are difficult and complex enough without the negative aspect of having teachers excluded from having involvement in determining the very workplace conditions which impact directly on the successful implementation of any educational change. I believe that specific working conditions which directly impact on a teacher's ability to manage the complex tasks of planning and teaching are best formulated at the local level. I find it very difficult to understand how a decision determined at a provincial level will be able to satisfy the myriad of individual differences in boards across the province unless the contents of the Education Quality Improvement Act and the subsequent regulations and cabinet orders have nothing to do with quality and improvement but more to do with money and power.
If a truly quality agenda is what the government seeks, one which will improve the achievement of students, there are some key thoughts to consider. You must remember that teachers have never abandoned the quality agenda. Ontario teachers are not opposed to meaningful change and they realize that change is essential for all of the students to respond and adapt to the society of the 21st century. But reform must be carefully planned and implemented, constructed around the existing excellence of our system of education as a collaborative, long-term effort involving all partners in education.
The main reason employees fail in the workplace is not a lack of employee dedication but because systems fail them. Successful reforms must elevate teachers to a more significant role in the process of change. Teachers are not just service providers, but key members of an integrated system.
From the beginning of the government's education reforms, the efforts of teachers have been publicly demeaned and undervalued. The politics of blame have been used. There are many things right in our system which could be used as exemplary models for change. Complex radical legislation should not be pushed through without sufficient consultation and full disclosure of all the information. A team approach must be in place if reform is to be successful.
In conclusion, it is my belief that if a true agenda of educational reform of the government is the improvement of education, then your plan, which practises exclusion instead of inclusion, direct control rather than collaboration and true consultation, is doomed to failure. If, however, the agenda of the government is only to reduce expenditures by cutting millions, then surely your expectation of increased student achievement will not be realized. This will be to your discredit, for you will have deceived the public and at the end of the day you will lose their confidence.
The challenge of improving education can only be done through the day-to-day actions of empowered individuals. Those empowered individuals are the teachers of Ontario. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation. We have used 10 minutes. As a matter of fact, we've gone over for a minute, and unfortunately there's no time for questions.
Mrs McLeod: I understand that, Mr Chairman. I have a motion that I'd like to place before the committee.
The Chair: While we're having the motion, could the next presenter, Mr Paluoja, please come up to the table.
Mrs McLeod: That's fine, Mr Chairman. I understand that the news conference at 10 o'clock has given us the indication that the teachers of this province will be having to take job action in protest against this government's legislation and this government's agenda on Monday morning unless there is very significant progress made between now and then.
With that in mind and recognizing the fact that there are a number of clauses in the legislation that's before this committee that give the government the tools it needs to cut the $667 million that we saw in the performance contract yesterday by cutting teachers and that cabinet has those powers, I am placing this motion. I'm not optimistic of it passing, but I feel compelled to place this motion because I think that we have to do something to call on the government to pull students and their teachers back from the brink of this crisis.
It is not a difficult thing to do, I say to the parliamentary assistant, because the parts of the legislation that could be withdrawn by the minister now, before this committee goes any further, could prevent this confrontation Monday morning from reaching the crisis stage.
My motion is that the Minister of Education be asked to withdraw the portions of Bill 160 which allow cabinet to cut costs by cutting teachers, in order to avoid a province-wide teaching strike on Monday morning.
The Chair: The motion has been properly moved.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I speak in support of the motion. I think we find ourselves in a very serious, grave situation in Ontario in the education of students, an unprecedented situation where teachers and their representatives have been brought to the brink of taking a political protest action that will have serious short-term effects for them and for students and students' families, but that I think unfortunately will also have serious long-term effects for the whole education system in Ontario. I think it is incumbent upon the committee to do everything possible to assist in averting this confrontation.
The Minister of Education and Training said yesterday that he wanted further discussions. Nobody wants strike action -- nobody. At least I hope nobody wants it. I know that the teachers don't want it, the students don't want it, the parents don't want it, the trustees don't want it, the community doesn't want it. I think it's important for all members of this committee to demonstrate that the members of all three political parties don't want it.
For that reason, I implore my fellow members to vote in favour of this motion. We need to have a cooling-off period during which teachers' representatives will be able to have discussions with boards. More important, the discussions that Mr Johnson has said he wants to continue can continue in an atmosphere that will not be charged with the hostility and confrontation that we've seen building up ever since Mr Snobelen said he wanted to invent a crisis a few weeks after he was first appointed minister and which has gone on with increasing intensity over the last two years.
I believe that the government and Mr Johnson have an opportunity, if they seize it, to turn this situation around. I believe if they don't, if the government does not move to try and step back, give us some time, give the community some time, consult in a serious way with teachers, they will be judged harshly, and they should be judged harshly, by students, by parents, by teachers and by anyone interested in the quality of education in this province.
I request, I hope that all members of the committee will be able to support Mrs McLeod's motion.
1030
I would only add that, in addition to the withdrawal of those parts of the bill that give the cabinet unilateral power by regulation to make significant changes that will allow the government to remove $667 million, or whatever other amount they wish to remove from the education system by fiat, I believe the government must make a significant commitment now to reinvest whatever moneys they save through restructuring in the education system in classroom education for students.
If we could have that kind of commitment, I think we would be a long way down the road of turning the situation around, of being able to develop what the previous presenter said was necessary, a collaborative approach to education reform that will benefit students and will really do something to improve the quality of education.
I would hope that as a first step the committee will vote for Mrs McLeod's motion. Then we would move further to a commitment to reinvest savings in education for kids. I just am very, very worried and concerned, as I think all of us must be, about the ramifications in the short and long term of this decision that teachers have felt compelled to take in defence not only of their own bargaining rights and working conditions but in defence of the quality of education for students and the learning conditions for pupils across the province.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wildman. Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mrs McLeod. Very clearly, over the last two days this committee has received some extremely important input in terms of the contents of this bill, in terms of the challenges that some would perceive are being presented with respect to Bill l60. I think that's important information for this committee to receive. Certainly from that perspective I would be of the position that the committee should continue and would recommend that to my government caucus members in terms of soliciting and receiving the input of various stakeholder groups across this province.
We've had two days of constructive input into the bill. This committee's work, in my opinion, complements the efforts of the minister, who is involved in direct negotiation with teachers' unions in this province. I see them as paralleling exercises that complement one another and not as an exercise that impedes the outcome of that work.
I would only say on behalf of government caucus members, and I think, in fairness, you alluded to it, Mr Wildman, all members of this committee are equally concerned about the future of public education in this province. That is why this government has undertaken the steps it has to reform the system. The system is in need of repair. We need to bring a new alignment of funding in this province so that all students, whether in St Catharines, Sudbury, in your home town of Sault Ste Marie or Ottawa, have the same opportunities available to them in the classroom. That's in part what this bill is about.
The $667 million you're speaking of, I can tell you from the outset what I know. We, as a government, intend to provide stable funding through the school year into 1998. Over the last two days we've heard some valuable input, in my opinion, concerning some challenges around stub-year funding. Those warrant consideration.
At the same time I think it should be made very clear that this bill provides, as you and Mrs McLeod are well aware, the framework to bring a new financing mechanism to this province, one that's long overdue, one that's had careful consideration for some 45 years. Simply the government is saying today, "Now is the time to move ahead."
From that perspective I think it's appropriate that the committee continue to do its work. We have said in the interim that we will continue to fund up to $14 billion to the education system, to provide the stability we need through the transition period and to provide the resources that both students and teachers need.
Bill 160, the education reforms the government is proposing, is all about students in this province. It's all about ensuring that student achievement is increased. It's about ensuring that teachers have the resources they need to provide those outcomes.
I would be in disagreement with Mrs McLeod's motion and certainly would not be supporting it. I feel this committee is doing good work in terms of receiving input on the merits of this bill. This bill is not just about teachers' collective bargaining rights. It's about operationalizing our new district school boards, it's about education development charges and it's about establishing a new finance system for the province in terms of how we fund public education here. I think all those aspects need to have careful deliberation and consideration.
My observation over the last two days is that we've had some substantive input in terms of the bill. How to improve it and all of those considerations will be given their due evaluation as we proceed with the work of this committee.
The Chair: The committee welcomes Mr Bradley, in whose riding we are presently sitting.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'll be speaking in favour of the motion by the member for Fort William. I will be very brief and not try to cover the other points that have been covered.
I think what has prompted the motion should worry members of the committee very much, and that is the release of the contract, a proposed contract for the Deputy Minister of Education which, despite all the denials we have heard from the former Minister of Education and others in the government, calls for a $667-million further cut in funding for the field of education. It is going to prompt people to believe that the real purpose of this bill is simply to withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars more from the system.
What concerns me very much in a general sense as it applies to this bill is the government again moving by regulation, any government moving by regulation as opposed to legislation, because none of us who sits on this committee is sitting in cabinet. We do not have the opportunity directly to influence any regulations which are made by the government. When it has to come before the Legislative Assembly, all of us, regardless of what riding, regardless of what party, have an opportunity to have input through speeches in the Legislative Assembly, through discussion that takes place in committees and indeed through question period and statements made in the House.
What we're seeing in this piece of legislation that I think is really worrisome is allowing only the cabinet, only a few members of the Legislature, to make decisions which will have very drastic ramifications for the province, and to be doing it quickly and drastically and without, I believe, looking at the consequences of those actions.
I'll be supporting Mrs McLeod's motion this morning. I think it makes a lot of sense. I hope we have this cooling-off period, where there's a genuine dialogue that can take place between all the parties to this particular dispute that is taking place at this time, so that they can reach a consensus, so that they can reach an agreement, because I know of no one who wants to see the kind of confrontation we anticipate is coming as early as next week.
Mrs McLeod: I apologize to our next presenter for making him wait, but as Mr Smith, in speaking to my motion, has somewhat ignored the motion itself, and I can understand why, I feel the need to make sure it's the motion that is in our considerations.
Mr Smith, I have not suggested in this motion that this committee cannot continue to consider Bill 160, the bill that's before us. I believe that we can continue to look at parts of the legislation which can be accepted. In fact, we've had teacher representatives over the last two days who have presented a long list of things they can accept in this legislation. I believe we can continue to work to amend parts of the legislation which can be improved. There are parts of the legislation that deal with what I can only describe as the chaos that will begin on January 1 as a result of the massive school board amalgamations that are going to take place.
1040
I didn't agree with what the government did with Bill 104 and that amalgamation, but I understand that with that amalgamation now in law and taking effect on January 1, there are some steps which must be put in place to deal with the ramifications of the amalgamation and that Bill 160, in its parts, needs to be dealt with before that date.
My motion speaks to parts of Bill 160 that have absolutely nothing to do with the school board amalgamations that take place on January 1. My motion speaks only to those parts of the bill which have been inserted into this legislation to allow the government -- the cabinet, in fact, because my motion speaks only to those parts of the bill which come exclusively within the control of cabinet -- those parts of the bill that allow the cabinet to cut costs by making unilateral decisions about how many teachers we will have in our classrooms. Those are decisions that have always been made at a local level by people sitting down at a bargaining table, indeed, but trustees and teachers with commitments to public education and to the wellbeing of students in our classrooms on both sides of that table determining what is in the best interests of the students in their jurisdiction.
I don't believe it is in the students' interests to have those parts of the bill giving that kind of decision-making power to cabinet. But beyond that, it is not necessary for the government to have those powers prior to January 1 to deal with school board amalgamation.
I submit to you that the only justification for those parts of the bill being inserted at this time is to allow the government to continue with its other agenda, and that is its agenda to cut further costs. Mr Smith, you have spoken to the government's statement of having stable funding in 1998. You weren't precise by saying that the stable funding commitment only extends until September 1998. That is the commitment the government made. I am not going to quarrel with whether or not the stable funding is actually being achieved.
You spoke of the input this committee has received. Yesterday it received input from Lynn Peterson, the chairman of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, who spoke to the fact that there could be as much as a $200 to $300 shortfall on the so-called stable funding from January to September, but that's an issue for another day. I do, however, want to address the fact that there were no guarantees as of September 1998.
Ms Peterson yesterday, in testimony to this committee, said she had seen documentation from the government of the intent to take a further $1 billion out of education after September 1, 1998. I'm not sure if somebody wants to suggest that Ms Peterson was lying when she testified to this committee yesterday. I believe she is a person of absolute integrity, and when she says she saw documentation from the ministry of intent to take a further $1 billion out of education after September 1998, that is the absolute truth and confirms the ministry's intent.
That might have been moderated somewhat yesterday by seeing the actual performance contract of the Deputy Minister of Education, in which the government's intent may have been lessened from the $1 billion to the $667 million which was in the deputy minister's contract. Nevertheless, it is absolutely clear that this government's agenda is to take millions of dollars more out of education on top of the almost $1 billion which has already been taken out. It is absolutely clear from every presenter to this committee that those kinds of cuts will devastate public education in this province.
I don't believe that this committee's work, in looking at the parts of Bill 160 which may need to be in place for January 1, would be in any way impeded if my motion were accepted and if just those parts of the bill which give cabinet the power to cut costs, to find those millions of dollars by unilaterally deciding how many teachers we would have, would be withdrawn. That is all my motion speaks to. But it would be enough, I believe, to prevent the crisis that could have 2.1 million students out of classes on Monday morning.
The Chair: If there is no other debate, I will --
Mr Wildman: A recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested.
Ayes
Bradley, McLeod, Wildman.
Nays
Boushy, Froese, Rollins, Smith.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: My apologies. I have another motion to put before the committee in light of Mr Smith's remarks regarding funding and the confusion that seems to reign among school boards.
Interjection.
The Chair: In the event that you might feel more comfortable sitting back in the audience, please feel free to go back, but this is a proper motion coming up and we have to deal with it. Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: I move that the committee recommend to the provincial government not to proceed with the passage of Bill 160 into law until the Ministry of Education and Training publishes the total funding the provincial government will make available to the school boards across Ontario and the educational funding formula for the immediate-term and the long-term benefit of Ontario students.
The reason for the motion is that we all know on this committee that crucial to the issues that have led to the current impending confrontation is the question of how much funding is available for classroom education for students in Ontario and the fact that the government has chosen not to publish the funding formula, apparently, until after Bill 160 is dealt with by the Legislature.
As Ms McLeod indicated, yesterday we had testimony from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association that the chair had seen a ministry document provided to them in a confidential meeting that stated there would be $1 billion removed by the Ministry of Education from education funding, from the total amount that is provided.
Then last week we had a public statement from the Minister of Finance who said that the government wouldn't necessarily have to remove $1 billion from education. He didn't say they wouldn't remove dollars from education, but that they would not necessarily have to remove $1 billion.
Then yesterday we had available to us this performance contract of the Deputy Minister of Education and Training, Veronica Lacey, for 1997-98, and it states on the attached page 2, 1997-98 performance contract, under "Fiscal," "Plan for the 1998-99 $667-million reduction...."
Yesterday, representatives of the government called into question whether this was an authentic document, but subsequently the Ministry of Education and Training confirmed that it was indeed an authentic document, that it was a draft of the performance contract, and that has been public information today in the press. So we have this confusion and significant reason for concern.
1050
Neither the previous Minister of Education and Training nor the Premier have made any commitment to reinvest all dollars saved from restructuring in education into classroom education for students. We all know that on top of the previous cut of approximately $1 billion from education and the fact that about 70% of school board budgets in Ontario is made up of salaries, whatever the number is, $667 million or up to $1 billion, the only way that magnitude of money can be removed from the education system is by cutting staff.
There's no other way to do it, and yet you have provisions under this bill to give regulatory power on class size, and the information we have been given is that the government intends to limit class size. There is tremendous confusion here. If you're going to lay off teachers to get the money out, which seems to be the main purpose, if you have a commitment from the deputy minister that she will save $667 million, how do we protect the quality of education for students in particular by limiting class size? The math doesn't work. I suppose I might be tempted to say that the government needs remedial math.
We need to know what the figure is. If the government would make a commitment, even if the Premier would now take the opportunity to make a commitment to reinvest in classroom education, in quality education for students, we might then be on the way to averting this confrontation -- if they would make that commitment. But even if they don't, we must know, not just this committee but the public -- the parents, trustees, school administrators, teachers, taxpayers, students -- what the funding is going to be. How is the grant system going to work?
We know that under Bill 160 the government will control mill rates. Local school boards will not be able to raise taxes. The Treasurer has said education taxes will be frozen. So it's crucial that we know the total amount the government is prepared to provide in grants and how the grant system is going to work in order for us to understand the true ramifications of Bill 160. It is improper, inappropriate and wrongheaded to pass this legislation without knowing what the numbers are. No businessperson would approve a business plan without seeing the numbers. It doesn't make sense; it doesn't make common sense.
I would hope the members of the committee will support the motion so we can see how much money is going to be provided for students in the short and long term by the provincial government and so we can understand how the new funding formula developed by the Conservative government is intended to work, for the benefit or otherwise of students in this province.
Mr Bradley: I want to indicate my support for the motion, which I think is a very moderate motion in that it simply asks for information before the government proceeds with this bill.
Even people who would be in favour of the bill in a general sense surely would want to see the details of the funding formula unfold before they would make a final judgement. I think that is why the motion lends itself to support by all members of the committee, regardless of what our political affiliation happens to be. We have to look at the implications of the bill. I know the government is anxious to move forward. I have seen that in many pieces of legislation. I know that the government cut off debate on this bill in the Legislative Assembly through what's called a time allocation motion and provided for fewer days of hearings than most people would like to have seen, so I know the government is anxious.
But surely the people of this province, and surely the members of this committee and members of the Legislature, should be entitled to know what the funding formula will be. How much is the government anticipating it's going to take out of the system? Is it going to reinvest money back in the system?
Again, what prompts motions of this kind at this juncture in the committee hearings is the leaked document which has come out that contravenes what the Premier, the previous Minister of Education and the present Minister of Education have had to say about the funding of education in the near future in this province, so wouldn't it be nice even for the government members who are not in the cabinet to know exactly what the funding formula is before proceeding with the bill? At that time, perhaps members of the government caucus might want to question the Minister of Education and the government further on this, or they may confirm their support. I don't know what that decision will be, but surely the issue Mr Wildman has brought forward, similar to the issue Mrs McLeod has brought forward, is the issue of having the knowledge of these items before the members of the House, who are elected by people across the province.
We're the only people they can get at. They can't get at the senior civil service. They can't get at the special advisers to the Premier and ministers. We're the only people they can get at because we're the elected people, and surely we should have all this information before the government proceeds further with this bill. If they're prepared to provide the information, then we are probably able to make a better judgement on what the implications are.
What we see in the newspaper, unfortunately, makes us worried that the real intention is to withdraw massive amounts of funding from the education system without looking at the true ramifications of the withdrawal of those funds.
I will be supporting Mr Wildman's motion and I hope other members of the committee see fit to do so as well.
The Chair: We have Mr Smith and Mrs McLeod.
Mr Smith: I will probably repeat some of my comments. I would only say to Mr Bradley that Bill 160 is not about being anxious; it's about providing leadership and moving the education system forward into the future, into a place where you, sir, had an opportunity to move it as a former minister of the crown.
We have continuously said that from the outset, as Mr Wildman and all members of the committee will know as respected members, that the government has been consulting about the new funding model since May of this year. Too often I have heard you say we are moving too fast. I recognize the funding model is critically important to the education system in this province. We are taking our time to ensure that we have it accurate, and that is where we are at.
We continue to seek technical and expert input into the model. That evaluation continues to take place. It has occurred throughout the summer, since May. We have received some four months of input from various individuals who were assigned the task of addressing such issues as base amounts for special-needs kids, amounts for children at risk and certainly how we bring about accountability in the financing of our schools. Those are all critical components of the funding model.
We have said in the interim that we will provide the base stable amount of $14 billion. I recognize the input we received on the stub-year funding and the stub-year funding is critically important in that short period of time. We have said repeatedly that we will spend what it takes to ensure that students of this province have the resources they need available to themselves and to their teachers to ensure the quality of achievement we expect from students and teachers in this province. That has been repeatedly stated, and that is a commitment I give to you again today.
The $667 million you are speaking of -- I apologize for being cynical yesterday, Mr Wildman. Please forgive me. When you wave a document in my face from across the room, I think it's appropriate that I question the authenticity of those things, but certainly the $667 million is in the performance contract of a deputy minister. It is not related to Bill 160; it is related to anticipated savings that would be realized across the whole of the education reform package. So please do not tie it and communicate to the people here today that it's solely linked to the provisions of Bill 160. That's simply not the case.
Mr Wildman: No, but Bill 160 makes it easier to do it.
Mr Smith: I think as well you might realize that in that performance contract there is reference to some $650 million in capital improvements. For the committee's information, that equates to about 30,000 new pupil places in this province. Your approach was to put kids in portables. Our approach is to put them in the classroom. Those are the types of things that are in that performance contract as well.
While we can debate around, and I suspect that Mrs McLeod will continue with her position on this issue and I appreciate it -- she has been very consistent in that position -- we will obviously, as government members, not be supporting Mr Wildman's motion.
1100
Mrs McLeod: I will speak briefly to Mr Wildman's motion because after Mr Smith's comment it is obviously futile for us to attempt to have any positive influence on what is to come. I guess I'm just feeling the intense frustration when I hear Mr Smith's response and when I know what is at stake. My God, if you don't need Bill 160 to get the $667 million that's in the performance contract, then why won't you take those parts of the bill out that are causing the confrontation? Why not pull us back from the brink before those two million kids are out of their classrooms? Mr Smith, listen to what you've just said. You can't tell me that your government has identified $667 million of savings anywhere else in any of your plans.
Your own minister has said that the entire savings estimated from Bill 104 and the restructuring of school boards amount to $150 million. The same report that said there would be $150 million saved said there could as well be additional costs incurred, and that school boards who presented yesterday said those additional costs could be anywhere from $300 to $500 million. Those would be costs that would have to be found in addition to finding the $667 million worth of savings which you have just said is indeed in the performance contract not of a deputy minister but of the deputy minister responsible, in her performance contract, for finding between September 1998 and September 1999.
That's 2.1 million kids at stake here and you still want to talk about stable funding commitments when you know full well that the commitment ends on the very date that the deputy minister's performance contract begins. I find this so unconscionable that I can hardly begin to speak to it. I find it unbelievable that when there is so much at stake, we could have the parliamentary assistant -- Mr Smith, I don't want to personalize this because I know you have no flexibility to do anything that has not been directed by the minister and indeed by the Office of the Premier of this province. This is not you. You are just in I think the unfortunate position of being the spokesperson today. But my goodness, please don't today talk to us about all the words that are in the funding formula. I know all the words. I know all the components. There's not a person here who would say that the words weren't the right ones. Mr Wildman's motion is about the dollars.
The funding formula words are meaningless until you put the dollars in place. That's all Mr Wildman is asking for in this motion at this point of crisis: "Let's have some light." We have had denial from government members, from ministers over and over again. Mr Johnson said yesterday: "I have never seen the performance contract. I know nothing about it." He may have only been Minister of Education for a week, but he was Chairman of Management Board. He's the one who controlled the purse-strings on behalf of the Minister of Finance. Don't tell me he doesn't know the fiscal agenda of the government.
We had Mr Eves last week saying: "It is not our intention to take a billion dollars out. The net result may not be a billion dollars"; and people said, "Government backs off plans to take a billion dollars out of education." Yes, indeed, $667 million instead of a billion dollars, and yet still we're getting denials, we're getting word games being played. We're getting a government determined to ignore the evidence that is presented by people of the most outstanding reputation, like Lynn Peterson of the public school board, who said she saw the documentation of this government's intent to take a billion dollars out, and you want to ignore that.
You want to hiss every time somebody talks about your government's intent to take money out of education because you know what that will do to kids in a classroom, if that is your government's intent. You can't ignore the evidence any longer: $667 million from September to September on top of what already has been done. You can't keep ignoring the evidence, you can't keep distorting the reality of what has gone on in our classrooms as a result of your cuts and you certainly can't keep distorting whose responsibility it is.
What happens to kids in classrooms when you take another $667 million out is not going to be the responsibility of school trustees, whose role has been totally taken away, and it's not going to be the responsibility of negotiations; it is going to be your government's responsibility. That's why, Mr Smith, Bill 160 is about the $667 million. The only reason you need those parts of Bill 160 that are at the heart of this confrontation is to get your $667 million. You have no other way of getting it and that's why you will not, and your minister will not, back away from those parts of the bill which are forcing this confrontation.
If that is not true, if everything I have said is not true, you can prove it by voting for Mr Wildman's resolution and let your government's agenda be known before this bill passes.
Interruption.
The Chair: I would remind the members of the audience that this is a hearing of the standing committee on the administration of justice. The orders provide that there is no demonstration in the audience. There are only a couple of rude people. Most people will abide by that, I'm sure. Thank you. Ms McLeod.
Interruption.
The Chair: I would ask you to leave, ma'am.
Interruption.
The Chair:I would ask you to leave. You are a person who will not abide by the rules, ma'am. It's unfortunate. Are you from this city? I hope not. It's an embarrassment.
Interruption.
The Chair: We'll recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1107 to 1115.
The Chair: I would remind the committee members that we have used approximately one hour and we're one hour behind at this moment in our presentations. I just point that out. In any event, Mr Wildman was next on our list.
Mr Wildman: When I moved the motion I had hoped that it would generate some light on these proceedings. It appears that all it generated was heat. I understand that the lady who was so angry and who expressed her concern about the proceedings and was escorted out -- she informed me that she used to work for Bob Welch as his constituency assistant, so she certainly was not a supporter of either the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party. I think it's unfortunate that she was not able to make a presentation, because I would have liked to have heard her views with regard to this bill.
I'll just close off the debate -- I won't prolong it, because unfortunately it looks like the government members will not support the motion -- but I want to respond just very briefly to Mr Smith's comments. I preface that by saying that I have the highest regard for Mr Smith personally but, with respect, Bill 160 does have a direct connection to the savings that the government intends to take out of education.
As I said earlier, 70% of the budgets are salaries. If you're going to save a sizeable amount of money, the government has to get rid of teachers. Bill 160 makes it easier to do that. Many in the public don't understand the controversy around prep time, but by concentrating, through regulatory measures, the power at Queen's Park to determine how much time a teacher has in the classroom and how much time a teacher has outside the classroom to do her or his job, you determine the number of teachers in the system.
Mr Snobelen -- not me saying this -- the former Minister of Education and Training said that the changes in prep time which are allowed for in Bill 160 would be 4,200 fewer teachers in Ontario. That was the figure he used. I didn't make it up.
If Mr Smith says that Bill 160 has nothing to do with the savings the government intends to take out of education, he's wrong. Mr Snobelen said it was directly connected. Mr Snobelen's estimate was a low-ball. The high-ball estimate is 10,000 teachers. I suspect it's somewhere in between. Probably 6,000 or perhaps 8,000 teachers will lose their positions or there will be that many fewer teaching positions in the province as a result of the changes that the cabinet will be able to make if Bill 160 becomes law.
Bill 160 is directly related to the savings. That's why we need to know from the government what the government's commitment is in terms of total dollars to be expended on the education of kids in Ontario. We also need to know from the government what the funding formula is and how it will work, what the grants will be. This is just to give us information. It is so the public will understand, and this committee will understand, and everybody involved will understand, what the government's exact commitment is in terms of funding before we pass Bill 160. They are directly related.
As I said in my earlier remarks, I don't know of any businessperson anywhere who would invest money in an enterprise unless he or she knew in advance what the estimates were: how much money would be expended on what and what the return would likely be. It just makes good sense. We should not be passing Bill 160 in the dark. We should know what the government's exact intentions are in terms of funding, because the government says Bill 160 is a bill to improve the quality of education. If it means laying off teachers, fewer teachers for the students of Ontario, I want to know how many fewer and I want to know how that will improve the quality of education for students.
Once again, I ask the members of the committee to support the motion. All it is doing is saying, "Let's not proceed." The government shouldn't proceed with Bill 160 until we all have the numbers. Then, if the government believes that it should proceed with Bill 160, it can proceed, but at least we will all know what the impacts are going to be, rather than doing this without the information.
The Chair: If there's no other debate, is a recorded vote requested? Recorded vote is requested.
Ayes
Bradley, McLeod, Wildman.
Nays
Boushy, Froese, Rollins, Smith.
The Chair: The motion fails.
ROY PALUOJA
The Chair: Mr Paluoja, we are one hour late and I apologize for that. Democracy is slow, but necessary.
Mr Roy Paluoja: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity. Certainly I'm not pleased to be here discussing education today, considering what has happened and the threat of a teachers' strike occurring on Monday.
I would like to just make a brief comment first about the fact that I am an hour late. I have the greatest respect for the institution of democracy and the Legislature and the process that has been set up. I have the greatest respect for the fact that opposition members are placed in a position to oppose. I have the greatest respect for that, but I would ask that the members of the opposition please temper their particular speeches. I think it's more appropriate that they occur in the Legislature. Just to remind them that this is a public hearing. I have the greatest respect for the position that you have, but I have been delayed for an hour and I think that it had to be said.
The presentation: When I started off applying for this, I looked at this as an opportunity to express points of view on Bill 160. I have two daughters in high school. One is in her OAC year, the other is in grade 10. Also, I have taught for 18 years in the community college system in Ontario, and I'm presently employed that way. I have a great deal of concern about what is happening right now. The red flags are all out; we keep waving the red flags and we seem to miss discussing a whole number of issues in Bill 160.
I am very clearly of the opinion that certain things, such as the length of the school year, the school day, how much time teachers spend in class, the size of classes, should not be negotiated at the local level, at local collective agreements. I feel very strongly that what we have had in the past is the large teachers' unions -- and they prefer to call themselves "unions" rather than calling themselves "federations" -- going ahead and targeting certain boards. You have this full power of the unions taking on a board. Quite honestly, I don't believe those types of issues should be at the local level.
If we are going ahead and establishing standards for curriculum, establishing other standards, including for the College of Teachers, establishing standards with respect to testing -- if we are going to establish all these standards, why can't we have provincial standards for the number of hours that a teacher is in the classroom? I do not believe, for the sake of equity across the province, that we have to have this negotiated. I don't believe it's negotiable.
When I say that, I really feel strongly that the teachers need to be involved in input to that. I wouldn't want this to be construed that teachers are not to be involved. I'm a teacher; I certainly feel that I should be involved in that.
When we have the ultimatums coming out from the teachers' unions -- and I don't want to turn up the rhetoric today, believe me. I don't think it's the appropriate time to do it. But we have had a lot of rhetoric; the ultimatums have been thrown out there. I have real difficulty with where we've reached, this particular point and juncture in time. I think that the unions have to make a decision whether they want to be federations representing all teachers in the province or whether they want to be trade unions. From that particular point, we can start discussing the various aspects that have to be dealt with.
To deal with the question of regulation, I'm not a lawyer but I have seen a lot of bills. Bills are passed and they have regulations attached to them. Those regulations that are attached to them, I don't see that we need to have every particular aspect and item placed in legislation every time. I know for a fact from my teaching experience that some bills are just a couple of pages long, yet the regulations that go with them are quite extensive. So I have real difficulty with the argument that we should be placing more in the bill, where it might in fact limit our ability in the future to do certain things.
The bottom line is, class size is not negotiable at the local level. I do not believe it should be there. I firmly believe that we need to keep it as it is at present, in the bill, and that we need not get into specific numbers.
I thank you for your time. If I have any time left over, I'll entertain questions.
The Chair: We have about a minute per caucus.
Mr Lessard: You've really focused on one of the regulation-making powers in the bill, and that deals with class size. But this is a bill that has some 260 pages and about 150 of those pages deal with the regulation-making authority of the government, so it isn't one of those two-page bills that is able to leave a few things to regulation.
My question deals with your support of the College of Teachers being able to set the standards centrally for teachers' qualifications. I was wondering if you support the provisions of this bill, in light of that, for non-certified non-teachers to be in classrooms?
Mr Paluoja: The wording of the thing -- and maybe there is an amendment there. I would like to see an offer being made to the College of Teachers to come up with a proposal with respect to non-teaching positions; in other words, that we address them as being the body that actually looks at teaching credentials and the other positions that they come up with and propose to the government. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that.
The Chair: I must interrupt and move on. Mr Froese, you have one minute.
Mr Froese: Thank you for your presentation. On anything to do with education reform, we've heard a lot from parents that they want to be more involved in decisions and have more input into the schools at the local level. Part of the bill allows for a greater input for parents on things like student discipline, student safety and local priorities. We're also asking the Education Improvement Commission to give us more input on how they can strengthen the role of advisory councils. Do you see that as a good step? How do you feel about that?
Mr Paluoja: I believe it is a good step. I would advise the committee, maybe, to remove the word "advisory" school council from that. I think it is contradictory to Bill 104, where you've just mentioned that the Education Improvement Commission is charged with actually looking into the role of the school councils. I think the legislation, with the insertion of the word "advisory," does prejudge that it will be advisory. My belief is that some school councils in the province have gone beyond being advisory right now.
Mrs McLeod: Sir, I had already personally apologized to you for keeping you waiting, which I think is a matter of courtesy, but I cannot apologize for not being able to carry on as if things were perfectly normal at a moment when we face the kind of crisis that we do, of this magnitude.
I do want to ask you one question following from your presentation, because I think you indicated that you felt the teachers should have some involvement in the kinds of decisions that are being made, even though you don't believe they should be negotiated. The bill, as it's written, clearly makes it an exclusive cabinet prerogative to determine who should be a teacher, notwithstanding anything the College of Teachers might do, as well as how many teachers we would have. In what way would you see teachers being able to have any real input to a process totally controlled by cabinet?
Mr Paluoja: I'm not totally convinced that in public policy development the entire thing is developed in cabinet. I can't speak, but you have been in cabinet so maybe you have more insight than I do.
The Chair: I'm sorry, our time is up. Sir, I thank you very much for attending here today.
UWE KRETSCHMANN
The Chair: Mr Kretschmann. Mr Kretschmann is a trustee of the Waterloo county school board and a resident of Cambridge. Welcome.
Mr Uwe Kretschmann: Thank you. I can't find my glasses. Oh well, I'll muddle through.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Chairperson, first, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Uwe Kretschmann and I reside at 851 Queenston Road, Cambridge, Ontario. I must advise the committee that I do not represent the Waterloo County Board of Education nor, for that matter, do I represent any other organization. Further, I do not belong to any political party as a registered member.
I appear before you today in order to represent the facts as they are in my county and as the unions and the board have negotiated benefits in their contracts over the past few years and how these issues affect Bill 160 and the union leadership's disinformation campaign, waged not only in my county but indeed throughout the province.
First, a little history. With the implementation of the social contract, initiated and brought to fruition by the previous NDP government, the unions and the Waterloo County Board of Education negotiated an increase in class size to pay for the said contract. This negotiated contract resulted in a reduction of 202 teachers in our board. Hence, the teachers did not suffer any economic reduction in either wages or benefits. In the contract year 1995-96, the unions negotiated a further reduction of 59 teachers in order to pay for the loss of the grid increases incurred during the social contract. This reduction in teachers, needless to say, increased, however marginally, class sizes one more time.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the unions, certainly in the Waterloo County Board of Education, did not hesitate for one moment to increase class size as long as that protected the economic position of their membership, all the while of course protesting that the provincial government wants to remove class size as a bargaining tool. In view of the aforementioned, I have to wonder aloud whether the unions want to retain class size bargaining as a means to protect their membership from economic hardship or to protect the quality of our education system. In addition, pedagogically speaking, if we accept the premise that a given class size could represent an optimum size, assuring a quality education of our students and a reasonable workload for our teachers, then the insistence upon negotiating class size by the unions raises more questions than it answers.
The second issue I would like to address is the replacement of fully qualified teachers ie, holding a valid Ontario teaching certificate, with people who are fully qualified to teach a given subject by virtue of experience and skill level exhibited over many years of work. The areas which fall into that category are keyboarding skills, guitar lessons and activity directors, to name but three.
The questions which arise are as follows: Why would a fully qualified professional teacher be perfectly happy to teach a rather mundane task such as keyboarding and find such a task professionally satisfying? Why should the taxpayer have to pay $65,000 a year to a high school teacher to fill the position of -- I lost my place; that's the reason that glasses are important -- activity director who organizes school dances and yearbooks? I would reject such a function as demeaning to my profession and totally unbecoming of my qualifications to be teaching such a subject or to be engaged in non-teaching areas such as activity director.
Further, I should point out to the committee that much of the co-op programs, such as machine shop, auto mechanics, woodworking etc, is also offered at community colleges. The proposed amendments to Bill 160 would simply allow the provincial government, as conjecture on my part, since conjecture seems to be the in thing today --
Mr Wildman: That's because we don't have the facts.
Mr Kretschmann: It would simply allow the provincial government to find the most cost-effective means to continue offering such instruction. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for fully equipped machine shops at the community college level as well as at the local high schools? Clearly, it is not in the interest of the unions to admit such a point nor to tell the parents and students of our community the facts surrounding these issues.
Incidentally, I have brought with me the motions which support my previous contention on the negotiations of class sizes and the reduction in teachers.
In addition, I would like to make some comments about benefits which teachers enjoy. We do not enjoy 20 sick days per year, plus receive the unused days at retirement paid as a bonus. The cost to the Waterloo County Board of Education was $3.2 million, after revision of the budget, for 1996-97, a very large amount indeed. Further, teachers get one paid personal day and three paid days a year to attend conventions, which, I may add, is in addition to the 20 sick days.
In conclusion, I would like to make some general comments regarding the planning time issue. It costs the Waterloo County Board of Education about $30 million a year to provide planning time system-wide. To put it in another perspective, that represents about 12% of the entire salary budget. Hence, the proposed reduction in planning time represents a rather minuscule amount in the overall context. No business -- since business has been coming up recently -- indeed, no other level of government would or could add 12% to its overall salary budget to allow its employees to plan day-to-day activities.
Clearly then, the teachers unions, certainly in the Waterloo County Board of Education, have used their bargaining skills to increase class size and diminish educational standards in order to protect the economic position of their membership. In addition, their opposition to differentiated staffing is demeaning to the profession and guided by the principle of greed, rather than a sincere concern about educational quality or opportunities for our students. The marginal reduction in planning time the government proposes has no impact on the professional standards of our teachers to deliver effective instruction in the classroom.
Having said all that, what I take the greatest objection to is the statement by the union leadership that any criticism I level against the current system automatically makes me a teacher basher, someone who does not care about our students or the quality of our education system. I find such a viewpoint outrageous and callous. People in a democracy have a right to criticize any institution without fear of being labelled "anti" anything.
When the most educated sector in our society stoops to employ fear factors -- "If you reduce financing of the system, your kids are going to graduate stupid" -- and employs the tactic that anybody who criticizes the system hates teachers, then I have to question the wisdom of having my children taught by such a narrow-minded and narcissistic system. After all, this is the system which is to teach our children the values of critical thinking, tolerance for divergent views and creative problem-solving. I guess they think such values apply to every other institution and person in the province, just not to the educational system.
The Chair: We only have approximately 30 seconds per caucus and we start off with Mr Froese.
Mr Froese: There have been a lot of comments on the involvement of different sectors of our society in the education system, those being -- I'll try and go real quick -- the government, the parents and the teachers. Can you give your opinion on what roles each should have in our educational system?
Mr Kretschmann: All of them should have input into the system. The exception is that over the last 30 years -- I don't know why this is a surprise around the table -- it always has been top down ie, Queen's Park tells us what to do, where to do it, when to do it, how to do it. It's been that way.
1140
Mrs McLeod: I would assume that the motion you've attached to your presentation relating to proposed cutbacks to find $17 million in the 1997 budget would be one -- have I the right presentation, Mr Kretschmann?
Mr Kretschmann: This particular page?
Mrs McLeod: Yes, I have a motion here, "In view of the massive cutbacks...."
Mr Kretschmann: Oh, you all got the wrong one. That's all right. That was my motion back in 1995-96 to the negotiating committee at that time prior to --
Mrs McLeod: Right, which calls for total removal of all extracurricular activities, saving money by not having libraries or new books --
Mr Kretschmann: There are a number of other issues, yes.
Mrs McLeod: Has that been realized?
Mr Kretschmann: But make that comment contextually, please.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs McLeod. Our time is up.
Mr Lessard: In the interest of time, I just want to say simply thank you and point out that if you're concerned about the impact of top-down decision-making, you should be concerned about the concentration of power in Queen's Park that would result from this bill.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Kretschmann, for your attendance here today. We apologize for the delay in hearing from you. Safe journey back to Cambridge.
RICHARD MACKINNON
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Steele Street School Advisory Council; Richard MacKinnon, chair. Welcome, Mr MacKinnon. Please proceed when you're comfortable.
Mr Richard MacKinnon: Thank you. I'm a parent of two elementary-school-age children, I'm an elementary school advisory council chair and I am a teacher. As an interested parent and school advisory council chair, I have a strong interest in education.
There are several things which we require from the education system. To best help my children learn, we need empowered, respected, certified, professional teachers in every classroom from junior kindergarten to the final year of high school. We need a well-funded system in order to empower teachers. We need a government and a minister who respect teachers in order to have a public and students who respect teachers.
We need certified teachers to ensure that people with expertise in education are doing the difficult job of educating. We need professional teachers in order to maintain collegiality, teamwork and esprit de corps.
My sons need and deserve a school with stable and sufficient funding. Cuts to education have already been drastic and this government continues to cut. My sons deserve better treatment. Provide the funding model to prove that this is not another way to pay for a tax cut, despite yesterday's leaked document indicating otherwise.
My sons need and deserve small classes for which teachers and school boards, despite the previous speaker's statements, have been bargaining for years. As funding has been reduced, class sizes have gone up. Let the teachers and boards of education pursue the small classes they both desire.
My sons need and deserve the rigorous and well-planned curricula which teachers can best design and implement with sufficient preparatory time.
My sons need and deserve extracurricular activities provided by professional teachers. The relationship between a professional willingly giving of her time, her energy and her knowledge will enhance the education of her students.
My sons need and deserve a quality education. For as many years as I can remember, my local school board has never faced a strike by teachers. Bill 160 has created this crisis. This government has created this crisis. The good rapport developed after many years of amicable relations is now being threatened. The government must find a way to avert the crisis it has created. My sons need and deserve for this government to shelve Bill 160.
As a teacher, I have a strong interest in education. The government proposes to reduce prep time. This reduction in prep time will lower the quality of education in Ontario. The government is only concerned with a financial saving. Time outside the classroom is put to great use by teachers. We cover the classes of absent colleagues, myself numbered among them today. We meet with students facing academic problems who have been withdrawn from the regular class. Each Thursday at my school we have a meeting between the principal, a guidance counsellor, the learning resource teacher and subject teachers to discuss students believed to be at risk. This government would have us believe that is a waste of money.
We mark essays, stories, assignments and tests. We complete paperwork on students with special needs and track student success. We prepare lessons and review new materials to use in class. We meet with our department head to discuss curriculum and other department matters. We arrange class lessons with our professional and certified teacher-librarian.
Reducing prep time is a two-edged sword. Teachers will have less time and energy available for students and will have a greater workload. The reduction in prep time is a cost-saving measure. Thousands of teachers would be removed from the system if this change was instituted. It defies logic that fewer teachers will provide more and better educational service. Do not slash jobs under the guise of promoting a better education system.
Cuts have already had an enormous impact on education. The government has removed $900 million already and these cuts have hurt the classroom.
The challenges of the many changes already announced are being tackled by a reduced number of employees. The government wants new curriculum implemented and school boards amalgamated, both of which are enormous tasks, to be accomplished by a skeletal staff.
Fewer students can stay after school for help and extracurricular activities because transportation has been cut back. This government is penny wise and pound foolish.
Junior kindergarten programs have been cut in many jurisdictions. The skills acquired in the first year of school are now delayed until senior kindergarten. This comes at a time when a rigorous new curriculum is being implemented. The best way to improve later learning is by providing an early access to education, especially for disadvantaged youth.
As funding has been cut, fewer teachers are retained to teach more students. Class sizes have been forced up by cuts to education. Further cuts will further increase class size. Fewer staff are available to provide the enrichment students crave. Scholastic, athletic, social, theatrical and other programs are being covered by fewer teachers. As these resources are stretched, the tension will increase, until the system breaks. Cut no more.
Bill 104 has created a quagmire of difficulties. Schools and boards are joining together and being broken apart all at the same time. These amalgamation plans are enough of a change to manage at one time. Further radical changes have been pushed upon the education system without consideration for the ramifications. There is a new guideline for curriculum in the elementary schools and time has not been given to implement that change. Secondary reform is slated to begin at the same time as elementary-age students may or may not be arriving with different skills and knowledge from their predecessors. Please slow down.
This government, through its uninformed actions, has poisoned the relationship with the very stakeholder group it most needs to implement current and future changes. Frankly, the appointment of a school dropout as a Minister of Education appalled teachers. His promise to create a crisis made teachers cynical. His musings over cutting $1 billion made teachers angry. The government launched a $1-million propaganda campaign at the taxpayers' expense. The new minister, we are to believe, is a voice of reason. His voice raises the same issues as his predecessor. His passion is labour disputes. Our passion is education.
The government abuses teachers, school boards, trustees and concerned parents. "Only a Minister of Education," the government says, "can solve the crisis in education."
1150
Teachers have dedicated their lives to education. Mr Snobelen, Mr Johnson, Mr Leach or even Mr Harris are interchangeable faces, supposedly with a commitment to education. These men have said that these changes are designed to improve education. Until two weeks ago, Mr Johnson didn't care about these education issues and Mr Snobelen never did care. They are disinterested in education and insincere when they tout references to quality education and improvements, when in reality they are only concerned with the dollar and a power grab. Teachers live and breathe their chosen profession and care deeply about education in Ontario. Listen to us, as our hearts are in the right place.
Withdraw Bill 160. The pace of change in education has been too rapid. The government has alienated the stakeholders that are most needed to make change in education work. Too much power is given to the Minister of Education under this proposed legislation.
There have been many recent changes in education. The social contract and Tory cuts have placed a strain on the system. Everyone has been working harder and making do with fewer resources for at least five years now. Class sizes have gone up in relation to the funding cuts already.
Education is a sacred trust. The ambition of this bill is not to improve education at all. The government wants to tear up contracts and limit the right to bargain in order to slash spending. Who can be trusted to promote education: teachers who have dedicated their lives to education or a minister dedicated to slashing budgets? Withdraw Bill 160.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. There's no time for questions but there's about 30 seconds. Would you like to just conclude in some other manner?
Mr MacKinnon: No. I thank you for your time. I have 60 kids in my two classes this afternoon waiting for me.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation then.
If we can move on, Enda Maguire is our next presentation. He's not here. We'll proceed to the next one and come back.
NORFOLK BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: The Norfolk Board of Education, Lori Burroughs, vice-chair.
Ms Lori Burroughs: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present to the committee this morning. My name is Lori Burroughs and I'm the vice-chairman for the Norfolk Board of Education.
Our board serves a primarily rural area with 10,000 students located on the shores of Lake Erie. Historically, we have had a close working relationship with the community, the students and our staff. With me this morning are both an elementary and a secondary school principal with whom I have had the opportunity to talk about the implications of Bill 160 for students and staff: Ken Sheppard from Delhi District Secondary School and Peter Rasokas of South and West Lynn public schools.
During my presentation I would like to focus on the implications of Bill 160 in three areas: students, staff and community.
Students: Many students in our community work in agriculture. Accordingly, the school year calendar has a direct impact on their ability to complete the harvest. A delayed start, with greater flexibility for each school board to determine the first day of classes and the organization of the school year calendar, is essential.
One of the basic premises of Bill 160 has been to provide more instructional time for students, especially at the secondary level. Reducing preparation time will not increase the amount of time students currently spend in the classroom. Decreasing the examination days to five days per school year, with the emphasis on student assessment during regular class time with a variety of relevant assessment techniques, would provide an additional 10 days of instructional time for each student.
Decreasing the number of professional activity days to five and providing opportunities for educators in the last week of August is another reasonable way of providing more classroom time for students while ensuring teachers and other staff have an opportunity to engage in professional growth activities and planning. In my discussions with teachers I am convinced that they support increased instructional time and learning opportunities for students.
Staff: The controversy over preparation time appears to be a major issue for both staff members and the provincial government. In our elementary schools, teachers receive 160 minutes per six-day cycle, or approximately 36 minutes a day. In the secondary panel, preparation time for each teacher is 40 minutes per day. As well, teachers have a standby period.
It would make more sense to assign specific duties during the standby period. These duties could include working with individual students requiring assistance, providing support to identified exceptional students, offering seminar groups, team teaching with other teachers, coaching and leadership activities. This would not effect a reduction in staff but would provide greater learning opportunities for the students and work towards the stated goal of the Education Improvement Commission. As well, there should be flexibility for boards to negotiate with teachers to reflect local needs and priorities. Bill 160 removes this responsibility and opportunity.
Community: The ability to raise taxes and involve the local community in the ownership of education is lessened through the impact of Bill 160. The Norfolk Board of Education's 1996 average cost per pupil was $6,279, while the provincial average in 1996 was $6,359. If one can assume that the purpose of Bill 160 will be to provide equal opportunity for students, then for the students in our community, this will be an increase of $80.
As well, there has been a conscientious and successful effort to ensure that funds go to support the students for instruction in the classroom. The Norfolk board commits 81% of its budget to classroom instruction and 1.8% for administration and governance. Any changes to funding in education should ensure that this commitment continues.
One of the cornerstones of our community has been availability to trustees and staff. Parents, students and community members feel comfortable and are encouraged to contact their local trustee, senior staff and school level staff. Any changes through Bill 160 and the amalgamation of school boards should highlight the importance of local access and accountability.
In closing, I would ask that every effort be made to make the necessary changes to Bill 160 through consultation and involvement of teachers, students and the community. Since January 1994, our board has reduced 9.13% of the teaching staff and 4.4% of all other staff through cooperation and involvement of the employee groups. By working together, no employee lost their employment and the financial targets were reached. I firmly believe that the long-range solutions to education reform in Ontario require involvement, ownership and honesty.
Mr Rasokas and Mr Sheppard each have a question they would like to ask.
Mr Peter Rasokas: I believe you have my question in front of you, so I'll just read it out for the public record.
As a principal of two elementary schools with a student population of 500 students, I am deeply concerned over the provision in Bill 160 allowing individuals who have not been trained as educators to have responsibility in teaching our young people computers, physical education, guidance, library, music etc. In what ways do you think these individuals will improve the quality of education?
Ms Burroughs: Mr Sheppard also has a statement.
Mr Ken Sheppard: If the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, is a legislative strategy to ensure the highest quality of education, a worthy goal that students, parents and teachers strongly support, in the most cost-effective manner, a goal students, parents and teachers might like to support but are highly suspicious of in the context of the bill, would it not be in the interests of students, parents and teachers to expand these hearings to provide genuine opportunity for the stakeholders to respond?
The Chair: Does that conclude your presentation?
Ms Burroughs: Yes, it does.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have one minute per caucus.
Mrs McLeod: I can't answer your question in terms of, "What ways do you think individuals who are not certified, qualified teachers would improve the quality of education?" because I think it cannot serve to improve the quality of education. The College of Teachers has made a presentation to this committee suggesting that cabinet not have the power to determine who should be a teacher and who should not be a teacher, so that the college, which does determine standards of professional behaviour as well as standards of certification, can continue to exercise that.
In terms of, "Should these hearings be expanded to include genuine opportunity for stakeholders to respond?" -- absolutely. I think it's of note as we come to St Catharines that there is only one presenter who will have more than 10 minutes. It's one presenter who was on the minister's exclusive list who does get half an hour, whether they prove to be representative or not. I'm appreciative of the fact that you've at least come and taken a 10-minute segment to make some of your views known.
I think the Chair will tell me I don't have time for a question now.
Mr Wildman: I'd just make the comment that I moved a motion in the committee asking for the extension of hearings and the government members voted it down. I would forgo the rest of my time so Mr Smith can answer your questions.
1200
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): One of the things you asked, Mr Rasokas, was what individuals can improve the quality of education. As we speak here today, I have two students from a high school working in my garage. We have a garage, a repair shop and a service station. They spend about two hours a day because their teachers feel that they will learn more there. We are not teachers. My mechanic is not a teacher and my wife who looks after my service station isn't a teacher. Yet those students go away very happy, very pleased that they've learned something. So I question whether or not the use of qualified people always has to be there to help people learn.
Mr Sheppard: May I respond to that?
The Chair: There is not time. Mr Rollins has used the time. Vice-chair and members, thank you very much for attending here today.
SECONDARY SCHOOL COUNCIL CHAIRS, LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: Our next presentation will be the Lincoln county school councils. Welcome. Please proceed.
Mrs Liz Palmieri: My name is Liz Palmieri. I'm the chair of the St Catharines Collegiate school council, the second oldest secondary school in Ontario. To my left is Kathy Dallaire, the school council chair of Sir Winston Churchill.
We are here today on behalf of the school council chairs from secondary schools in Lincoln county. When we met earlier this week, we were stymied about what we could contribute to these consultations on Bill 160. We are not experts in drafting legislation. We do not have the resources nor the time to pore over the language or the intent of the bill. We are not experts in the classroom. We do not know the ramifications in the classroom once the bill is implemented. But what we are is a group of intelligent and concerned parents who are appalled at the current showdown taking place over this piece of legislation.
For the life of us, we cannot believe that all parties involved do not have the same concerns at heart, which is that Ontario should have one of the best education systems in the world. We believe that both the teachers and the government want to ensure that the resources are available in the classrooms to achieve this goal. While this may be perceived as a motherhood statement, it is a lofty goal and one that all involved should strive for.
However, what has transpired to date in destabilizing the education system and demoralizing the teachers is reprehensible and both parties are to share the blame in this. While the government's goals are worthy, the speed with which it is trying to implement change is too fast and without proper and judicious planning, especially given the massive amount of change and its potential impact. There are too many unresolved issues which are affected by this legislation. The speed with which these public hearings are taking place is making the Lincoln county secondary school councils feel that they are just window dressing so the government can say that the public has been consulted. The minister must show us that the input from these hearings will be considered as the bill wends its way through the legislative process.
While we appreciate the concerns and frustrations that the teachers are raising, they must be reminded that they are role models to their students. There is an entire generation of young people in the elementary school system who have learned a variety of methods of conflict resolution. The teachers are showing us that they are not practising what they teach. Instead of handing the government a document with 30 issues which must be addressed within 24 hours, they should be insisting that a true conflict resolution process be followed. Damn it, they are the experts in this.
This time last year the government proposed changes to the curriculum for secondary schools, curriculum which was to have been developed and introduced this fall. The response from parents, businesses and teachers was immediate and vociferous against many of the proposed changes. We applaud the government in listening to the concerns raised and slowing down the curriculum development process. By taking time, doing thorough consulting and considering the total impact of the new curriculum, a shared vision will be the outcome. However, this new process would not have occurred if the minister had not listened to the hue and cry from those who protested the speed and lack of forethought in implementing the proposed curriculum changes.
The secondary school councils are afraid that we are in the same situation again this fall, only on a much, much larger scale. We urge the new minister to put this legislation on hold until outstanding issues are resolved.
What can we as parents and council chairs do to contribute to this process? We are great believers in positive input to achieve results, so here's our list of suggestions.
We want any financial savings realized through the implementation of Bill 160 to be reinvested in classroom resources and we want this guarantee written into the legislation.
We are tired of hearing Grade 9 teachers talk about the poor communication skills of their students. We are also tired of hearing university faculty talk about the poor writing skills of many of their first-year students. While the government has instituted a new curriculum in the elementary school system and has started work on a new secondary school curriculum, there is an entire generation of young people clearly lacking these skills. We would like to see an immediate infusion of resources into the secondary school system to provide remedial work to improve the written communication skills of our students.
When the government talks about class sizes, please remove principals, vice-principals, special education teachers, guidance counsellors, social workers, psychiatrists and caretakers from the formula. These people are critical to our children's success in education. Determine reasonable class sizes depending on the needs of the curriculum. How much learning can truly take place in classes with 35 students?
We are very concerned with the amount of power that will rest with the minister after the legislation has been passed. It is our understanding that the current Education Act spelled out very specific powers and responsibilities. This specificity is missing in Bill 160. The regulations outlining the minister's responsibilities will come out after the bill has been passed into law.
With all due respect to the current minister, can you imagine the crisis that would be currently taking place at the secondary school level if the new curriculum had been introduced this September without any public consultation? If we had relied on the minister and the Ministry of Education to implement that new curriculum, the results would have been catastrophic. Bill 160 must be more specific concerning the scope of the minister's power. I'm sorry, but given this government's history, we cannot trust that without consultation the best system or regulations will be instituted.
Lastly, we would like to suggest that the process for developing Bill 160 take a breather for a while. As we said earlier, we are appalled at the grandstanding, stonewalling, threats and politics that are taking place. We would like to suggest that a process be established to get to the root of the problem and to develop a shared vision to develop the best education for our children.
I was at a local public school this week and asked them for a copy of their conflict resolution process. They lent me one of their posters, which I would like to share with members of the committee. While I hate to use this term any more, it is a "commonsense" approach to finding a common solution to the problems. Unfortunately, I can't leave the poster with the committee members but I can share the process with you.
We, as parents, urge the government and teachers' federations to take some time to cool down -- interesting, it's got a little snowflake there; I don't know if that applies to the weather that took place last night -- let each side tell his or her side of the problem, try to see the other person's point of view, brainstorm solutions together -- I think the lightning bolt is particularly applicable in the poster -- and act on your solutions.
This is a process that has proven to be successful. We are teaching it with success to our children, and we urge you to adopt it in any future negotiations around Bill 160.
The Chair: Thank you. That is certainly good advice. We only have 30 seconds per caucus.
Mr Lessard: Thank you for your presentation. I think you've offered some very good advice with it. I especially like your proposed amendment with respect to having a section in the legislation to guarantee that any financial savings realized be reinvested in classroom resources.
I appreciate your comments with respect to the speed that the government is going as well. Part of the reason for the speed is that they expect to take up to $667 million out of the system. In fact, they've actually got that in a performance contract with the deputy minister and they are scrambling to try and find those savings.
1210
Mr Smith: I appreciated your presentation this morning. I don't say this in a condescending way, but it's refreshing to receive some recommendations in conjunction with the presentation. Certainly we'll take those under advisement because I think they're very thoughtful and warrant consideration.
Mr Bradley: Again, I want to compliment you on putting forward the point of how it is important that we know in the legislation and before legislation passes all the details of the legislation. I think the point you made about being apprehensive about governments having large regulatory powers where they do not have to show their hand, if you will, in the legislation but do so only in the back rooms of the cabinet would advance the circumstances we face now if the government were to take that to heart.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here today.
Jane Branchflower? As that person is coming up to the podium, let me say we should have finished at 12. We are obviously late. I assume I am just to proceed until a member of the committee says "enough" and we go over to the afternoon. Is that the way we're proceeding? Is there any objection to that? If not, Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: Just a very brief question. I appreciate the fact that Mr Smith has tabled a response to my earlier question and that for non-teaching employees who are covered by Bill 136 and who are not in boards that are amalgamating, they do not have to renegotiate their contracts. I would then have a second question and ask for a written response. Given the fact that non-teaching employees in non-amalgamated boards don't have to renegotiate, why is it that teachers are being required to renegotiate contracts even if their boards are not amalgamated?
JANE BRANCHFLOWER
The Chair: Jane Branchflower.
Mrs Jane Branchflower: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Jane Branchflower and I thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning. I am a parent and a taxpayer in this province. I was born and educated in this province and hold an Ontario elementary school teacher's certificate. My husband's career took us to three other provinces of Canada, where I pursued my teaching career until our children were born in the province of Quebec.
When we returned to Ontario with our school-age children nine years ago after a 15-year absence, we were appalled at the state of education in this province and at the high taxes required to support it. Having seen other systems with different standards, we were shocked that taxpayers here pay so much for so little.
During the past nine years we have paid thousands and thousands of dollars through our property taxes, business taxes and income taxes to support a system that does not equip our children with basic skills. Additionally, we personally have spent thousands of dollars on educational materials, private tutoring agencies and, finally, private school to support the learning of a child who, when tested by our local public school board, was determined to be very bright, with no learning disabilities.
I can think of no other tax-supported service which requires such heavy supplementation from its users. I'm not expected to get a shovel and fill potholes in my street or hire someone else to do it. I'm not expected to chase speeders or issue parking tickets. I'm not expected to volunteer to help the sanitation crew pick up the garbage on my street or to bring a ladder to change a burnt-out street lamp. These services are paid for in my taxes, just as education is.
Reform of our school system is long overdue. While a succession of governments have promised reform, this is the first government in a very long time to act on its election promises to improve the system and make it accountable. Bill 160 is another welcome step in the process.
We need departmental examinations to set a province-wide standard. A secondary school graduation diploma means very little unless something is known about the school which granted it. Currently the high schools in Ontario are ranked by the university admissions office in Guelph. The assigned rankings are not public knowledge. They should be. The public has a right to know how the local high school is ranked by those who have the power to admit their children to university or to college. I encourage the government to introduce secondary school leaving examinations to provide an external standard by which we may assess our schools.
Standardized report cards which report on the child's progress rationally and honestly to the parents will be a welcome change from the mystifying anecdotals which often tell more about a teacher's creative writing skills than a child's academic achievement. I hope that they have been designed in such a way as to prevent or at least discourage lying. Also, I do not believe that teachers should assign marks to things they do not actively teach. Our family has had to deal with both situations in the public school. Report cards are official documents and should be treated as such.
The simplest, most efficient, effective way of teaching students time-management skills, work habits and study skills is through a well-designed homework policy that begins with nightly 10- to 15-minute simple assignments in grade 1 and gradually increases to 30 to 45 minutes per night by the end of grade 6, based on and reinforcing some aspect of the day's work. A positive side effect of this kind of policy is that it keeps parents aware of and involved in their child's school life. It also promotes partnership between the teacher and the parent in the scholastic achievement of the child.
I learned this when my oldest two children went to school in Quebec. They never objected or complained about having to do their homework; rather, they regarded it as a normal component of their school work. They found it strange that children in Ontario resent having to do it.
Education is a provincial matter. Therefore it is entirely reasonable that elected provincial representatives should have authority, through the Ministry of Education, over our schools to ensure fairness and equality of opportunity for all children in all areas of our province. I am surprised that the act has to be amended to provide this. If the government of this province does not run the school system, who will, the unions? I did not vote for any one of them. They do not represent the electorate, to whom the schools belong.
Bill 160, however, in at least one area -- union bargaining practices -- does not go far enough. All children in Ontario are entitled to receive the same quality of education. Their teachers, in order to deliver that education, ought to have the same working conditions, with whatever modifications are deemed necessary in isolated areas. Therefore, the unions that negotiate those working conditions should be doing it on a province-wide scale.
Combining the two unions representing elementary school teachers in the public schools is an excellent move, one that is long overdue. While I am relieved to see that principals and vice-principals are not allowed to participate in a strike by their bargaining unit and cannot be locked out by their employer, important for the safety of very young children in elementary schools, if education is essential to a successful future, then education is an essential service which should not allow strikes. I believe that the current leader of the Ontario Liberal Party in 1992 sponsored a private members' bill that would have removed the teachers right to strike. It's too bad you didn't pass it.
Additionally, on the subject of unions I want to protest the politicization of our children by their teachers. I have heard teachers claim that one of their prime duties is to teach their students to think critically. Indoctrinating students with union rhetoric makes mockery of that claim. This debate over the running of our schools does not belong in our classrooms, nor should it involve our children. They should not be made to believe that their education is in jeopardy, when it is not. Until now I believed that a teacher's politics were to be left at the door and I would like to see that made into law.
Annual audits of the boards, with the auditors' reports published in the local press, will force our boards to handle our tax dollars more prudently.
I hope that any regulations made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council concerning advisory school councils will give these bodies real authority in their schools. If not, concerned parents will turn cynically away from them with a "been there, done that" attitude. I know there is a prevailing view among the education establishment that many parents do not care or are not interested in their children's schooling. Frankly, I do not know any of those parents. The parents I know care very deeply about their children's education. Knowing it is vital to their children's future success, they consistently go the extra mile to support their children's learning, even to arranging their work schedules to permit volunteer time at their children's schools. They are too busy, too jaded and too fatigued from supplementing their children's schooling to have extra time or energy to give to advisory councils that do not allow them a real role in their child's school.
Capping class size is a good plan, although small classes will not guarantee better results. Nevertheless, boards and unions must not be allowed to use class size as a bargaining chip since class size affects children directly.
I see nothing wrong with having our teachers teach for the same amount of time that their colleagues in other provinces do, and I like the notion of bringing individuals with expertise in various fields into the classroom. Secondary students particularly need exposure to people from the private sector who are familiar with the working conditions and requirements there and can function as role models, as well as providing students with insights into career opportunities. I think library technicians could replace teacher-librarians and cost less to employ. Why not consider ECE graduates who are trained specifically to deal with young children in junior and senior kindergarten?
Our school year is --
The Chair: I'm sorry --
Mrs Branchflower: Are we finished?
The Chair: Yes. Our 10 minutes have elapsed. I thank you very much for your presentation. You have filed with the committee a written submission by Susan H. Deathe and we will make copies and distribute that to the committee.
Mrs Branchflower: She wanted to come and couldn't.
1220
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, BROCK SECONDARY TEACHERS' UNIT
The Chair: Our next presenter is OECTA, Brock secondary teachers' unit, Mr Larry Newton. Welcome, Mr Newton. We have 10 minutes, so please proceed.
Mr Larry Newton: The Brock secondary teachers' association, of which I'm proud to be the president, represents the Catholic teachers at the secondary level here in Lincoln county and approximately 3,000 students in five high schools -- adults as well. We combine with our other affiliate members to comprise about 134,000 people in the province of Ontario.
I'd like to quote from the October 6, 1997, Ontario Hansard, in which at that time the Honourable David Johnson said:
"We know we have excellent teachers and we know we have bright students and we know we've been spending a lot of money in the system, yet the results we are achieving on tests are not what we would hope for as parents and as residents of the province. I have the results of an international mathematics and science" -- there was an interjection, and it goes on to say:
"The Ontario students scored under 55% in mathematics, in science scored about 57%. When I look at Canada in general, the students in Canada in general scored about 60% on both tests, which is higher than the Ontario level."
He proceeded to talk about those in Alberta and British Columbia, all as if those scores indicate that the students in Ontario scored below those. The concluding comments by the Honourable David Johnson at that time were:
"We have excellent teachers, we have bright students, and we spend a lot of money. Why are we not getting the results we should be achieving?"
The purpose of the presentation here this morning is to present to you, the members of the committee, the thesis that the original premise of the government with respect to the education system is flawed and, by extension, the methods by which the government proposes to alter the education system as put forth in Bill 160 are similarly flawed.
The test results to which Mr Johnson was referring demand a more sophisticated interpretation than he and his government have provided. The quoting of raw scores and the ranking of countries and jurisdictions taking the tests based strictly on these raw scores have been warned against by those associated with both the creation and the interpretation of the tests.
I've included attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the end of my report which provide a further refinement of the test results, taking into account what is known and what is agreed to internationally as the opportunity-to-learn factor. When the raw scores of participating countries and jurisdictions are adjusted using this factor, Ontario students, as you'll see in attachment 4, achieve scores that are more than comparable on both the international and the interprovincial scales.
The government displays a high disregard for the intelligence of the people of Ontario when it presents the raw scores of international test results to the public, test results that government officials know, or ought to know, are not intended to be used in this fashion. To further insist that these scores in their raw state in any way indicate the desperate state of Ontario's educational system speaks more to the willingness of the government to manipulate the data to fit its agenda than it does to the true state of Ontario's schools. The government, however, continues to exhibit these test scores as irrefutable proof of an education system in crisis, an education system that is in need of immediate and wide-ranging changes.
We are not saying that change is not necessary. To the contrary, we welcome change, but we insist that the change is substantiated by untainted research. The system is not in crisis. Our students are not lagging behind their interprovincial or international peers, but there is room for improvement. A perfect example of that is the recent national science curricula initiatives that have been put forth by the various ministers.
But what of the alternative? What if everything the government says about our education system were to be true? Would the proposed legislation address that problem?
Bill 160, as it is written, is not about the improvement or even the maintenance of the quality of education. Bill 160 is an extraordinarily disruptive piece of legislation. Under Bill 160, the provincial government assumes all the authority but accepts none of the responsibility. This legislation will bring an end to educational democracy.
Of particular concern are the sections of the bill which restrict the scope of bargaining. The government, as pointed out, is not above using faulty data to substantiate this draconian intrusion into free and unfettered collective bargaining. Bill 160 does not include a provision similar to those provisions found in Bill 100 which expressly stated that "all collective agreement negotiations shall be carried out in respect of any term or condition of employment put forth by either party." At the same time, Bill 160 does not contain any express restrictions on the scope of collective bargaining. However, it does introduce new regulation-making powers in a number of fundamental areas and it does provide that the Education Act and regulations are to prevail over the provisions of a collective agreement in the event of a conflict.
Let's examine some of the specifics. I will not read those, but those are the sections -- and I have quoted them from the proposed act -- which in our case would be classified as intrusive into the scope of bargaining. These are examples of the intrusive nature of Bill 160.
The government, through its minister, wishes to retain sole and exclusive rights over issues that historically have been the subject of free and unfettered collective bargaining between boards and teachers. The limiting of the scope of negotiations is a recipe for disaster, and a number of people much more sophisticated and knowledgeable on the topic have spoken to that issue over a period of time.
The Ontario Council of Catholic Bishops, on June 24, 1997, said in part: "Authentic negotiations can only take place between parties who have roughly equal leverage, who are empowered to make their own decisions, including that of using sanctions, and who are motivated to resolve issues between themselves."
The Ontario Education Alliance spoke on the issue when they said:
"Employees have a right to negotiate all matters dealing with earnings, benefits and working conditions. Some of these matters are so basic -- the right to strike and the right to arbitration, for instance -- that they are governed by legislation and not negotiable. Apart from these basic employment matters, however, all other factors can be the subject of employer-employee negotiations.
"Ontario will continue to enjoy economic growth and development throughout the long term if the province continues to fund public education, continues to make education freely and publicly accessible, and continues to have a community of teachers and education employees whose employment is governed by fair and just collective negotiations' legislation."
More importantly, the Ontario Legislature addressed this in 1979, in what has been known as the Matthews commission. On October 30, 1979, the Honourable Bette Stephenson, Minister of Education, announced through a statement to the Legislature the establishment of a commission under section 9 of the Education Act to review the collective bargaining process between teachers and school boards which had been in place at that time since 1975.
One of the major issues reported on was the question of limiting the scope of bargaining, and I'll take the opportunity to quote the pertinent section:
"The Commission has carefully studied this issue and has come to the conclusion that open-scope negotiation is in the best interest of the parties' relationships under Bill 100.
"In our opinion, the decision on the number of teachers and their deployment cannot be isolated from other conditions of employment. The number of and the deployment of teachers by a board obviously affects the workload of individual teachers.
"We therefore see no merit in further complicating the bargaining process by creating an unclear definition of what is negotiable. Surely this would not facilitate the bargaining process or promote harmonious relationships between the parties.
"We believe that it is important for the long-term health of the parties' relationship that either party be free to air any legitimate concern at the bargaining table. To restrict the scope of bargaining by legislation could result in these complaints becoming suppressed, only to lie smouldering beneath the surface, ready to erupt in the form of a bitter strike at some future date over some surrogate issue that is negotiable. Maintaining open-scope negotiations in the collective bargaining process can assist in preventing unredressed concerns from inflicting harm upon the public in the form of an unnecessary strike."
In summary, the initial premise of the government fails when the supporting data are shown to be flawed. Even in the alternative, if the supporting data were to be acceptable, the method of redress as chosen by the government, namely a limiting of the scope of negotiations as contained in Bill 160, is doomed to failure at best and is a complete disregard for basic democratic rights at worst.
Thank you kindly for your time.
The Chair: There's less than a minute left. Is there anything further you would like to add? There's really no time for questions.
Mr Newton: I'd just like to say that this was written before the announcement this morning at 10 o'clock. At no time do the teachers of Lincoln county whom I represent wish to be anywhere but in our classroom Monday morning. Anything you can do, either by regulation or by suggestion or by pressure, to put the parties who are deciding that between now and Monday, we would encourage you to do anything and everything in your power to do so.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Newton.
Could we have a five-minute break? I would like to proceed exactly after five minutes. My time is now 12:33, so we'll be proceeding at 12:38.
The committee recessed from 12:33 to 12:38.
LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS
The Chair: I reconvene the committee. Our next presentation is Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, George Thomas, principal.
Obviously, that is not correct. It's Joanne Bascom. Would you identify yourself properly and then proceed.
Ms Joanne Bascom: My name is Joanne Bascom and I am principal of West Park Secondary School here in St Catharines. I'm also the chairperson of the Lincoln County Public Secondary School Principals' Association. I'm speaking here today on behalf of the principals and vice-principals of this system and in defence of our 8,000 students. My thanks to Mr George Thomas, a fellow principal, for having secured this opportunity to address the committee.
I'm going to cover seven points in my remarks.
The most repugnant article of Bill 160 may be found on page 73 of the bill, so in this very thick document, page 73, section 170.1, is in my view one of the most interesting ones to regard.
What is the government's purpose in this bill? Last night on the CBC and on TVO, as I was watching, it was revealed that the Deputy Minister of Education has been directed in her performance contract to remove $667 million out of education operations. Despite government denials in the media, this performance contract document now appears to be an incontrovertible fact.
How can this money be removed?
The use of uncertified personnel to teach in classrooms: Previous speakers have indicated and explained how uncertified personnel in the classrooms of Ontario would cost less money than certified teachers' salaries.
Money can be removed by a reduction in teacher preparation time at the high school level and the consequent loss of teachers across the province. In my very rough mathematics, approximately one in 10 high school teachers would be eliminated, a 10% reduction in the workforce, if prep time is reduced by one quarter. If prep time were to be reduced by half, as was originally proposed, my rough math says that would be a 14.3% reduction in the workforce in the secondary schools of Ontario.
How may money be removed from the system using the hammer of Bill 160? There is a lack of detail on the funding formula or the mechanisms for financing education, but the obvious centring of control of financial decisions in the hands of the cabinet would be a way of reducing money from the system.
I believe the seizure of control by the provincial cabinet of educational decisions that ought to be in the hands of professional educators and elected trustees again is a mechanism for reducing the funding to education. Regulating class size at the provincial level for the whole province is a case in point.
I believe Bill 160 strips many collective bargaining rights from 126,000 Ontario citizens, and previous speakers have spoken eloquently to this point.
I believe Bill 160 represents a dilution, not an improvement, of the quality of programs for students, and that will be inevitable if this legislation is enacted. With increased workloads, teachers will be spending less time with your son and your daughter.
An arbitrary lengthening of the teacher's working year, the teacher's working day, and the student's academic year without thorough and careful research I believe will be extremely damaging to the quality of education in Ontario.
These are the concerns of the administrators of the secondary schools of the Lincoln county public board of education.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have a little over a minute per caucus.
Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. I want to ask two questions, and I'll ask them both at once so I can get them in.
The first is, what do you see as the consequences for education in St Catharines and the surrounding area, Lincoln county, of the significantly fewer teachers that you would have at the secondary school level? What would be the consequences of that for schools in our area, first of all?
Second, what do you believe will be the consequences of the further funding cuts by the provincial government? They've already cut $533 million directly. They've confirmed $425 million in other cuts. Now it's alleged that there's going to be $667 million more cut out of the system. What will be the implications of that for high schools in Lincoln county?
Ms Bascom: The implication of fewer teachers -- in my school, of 28 teachers, I could see two to three gone. Just translate that across to other schools in the city, in the province. The work that needs to be done is spread among fewer personnel. Obviously the quality of work, the quality of service delivered to students, will be diminished.
Another consequence of the funding cuts I think will be everything from materials in the classroom to social and educational supports for children, such as youth workers. These are all areas that are vulnerable and that we could possibly see diminished. I think that's a very real threat to the quality of education, particularly by reducing personnel who will deliver it. That's a very real danger.
Mr Wildman: I'm mystified why this bill is called a bill to improve the quality of education.
Ms Bascom: As a former English teacher, I am very mystified by this twisting of the English language.
Mr Wildman: You said that we need to know the funding, obviously. Would you support the view that we shouldn't pass this bill into law until the Ministry of Education and the government make it clear what the exact funding will be for education in the province?
Ms Bascom: To me that seems self-evident, that it ought not to be passed. But it's not just the financial side of the bill that worries me; it's the other side.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. We've had a considerable amount of input on the differentiated staffing or complementary staffing issue, whichever name you want to apply to it. The Royal Commission on Learning addressed this and clearly indicated that there would be professional benefits to teachers, and I'm saying this in the context that I know as teachers you supplement your classrooms now. It's not a new concept. The Education Improvement Commission made specific recommendations for additional supports for teachers of outside experts.
Can the findings of these two, not only the commission but the Royal Commission on Learning, be wrong?
Ms Bascom: I think they can be misinterpreted and abused when they're implemented in the schools of the province. I don't think a skilled carpenter is necessarily a skilled teacher of carpentry. I believe the people in the classrooms of the province need to be trained, skilled teachers with teacher certification.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Bascom.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 6, LINCOLN
The Chair: Our next and last-before-lunch presentation is OSSTF, District 6, Lincoln, Mr Bill Brown. Welcome, Mr Brown.
Mr Bill Brown: Thank you very much. I'm proud to tell you that I've been a teacher in this province for the last 32 years, that I've taught students from probably age 14 to at least 64. I come to you in the context of a teaching experience and certainly also as a parent with two adult children and a grandparent of two young children about whom I have lots of concerns relative to the quality of education in this province.
I also at the moment represent about 700 members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation in Lincoln. I've never seen teachers as frustrated as they are at the moment, when they seem to be at total odds with a government that seems to be saying, "We have the same aims," but we don't seem to be able to come to any single purposes when it comes to resolving the issues that we are dealing with in Bill 160.
I've tried to outline for you at the beginning, on the first page of my written submission, a brief summary of the kinds of descriptions that teachers would have that would make up quality education in Ontario. Several of the earlier presenters have already spoken to some of the issues, and I know the committee has listened attentively and is interested in hearing other presenters as well.
I'm not going to read for you the list that I've presented. I am going to suggest to you that it seems to me there are some common goals that all of us might agree on and that our major problem is how we get there without destroying the system we already have that has by and large served us very well, for several successive generations at least, in this province.
It should be clear, I hope, from the list I have presented to you that teachers are not opposed to change. I'd like to emphasize that, because I believe for the people I represent, and certainly from personal experience, education has been in a constant state of change since I came into teaching in the middle 1960s. Sometimes it seems to those of us who are just a touch cynical that we tend to go round in circles. Sometimes it takes different lengths of time, but we still seem to come full circle on so many topics.
Teachers in Lincoln and in this province are sincerely interested in creating the best quality education system for their students of all ages. I hope this is a given, because I believe most of you have experienced that during the time you spent in school and in the context that you have with the public and with teachers in general.
We've certainly looked with dismay at what's happened with early education programs and with adult education programs across this province over the past several years. It seems to us that we need to focus at least partly on those two areas.
Having said that, I'd like to talk about one of the specific topics that it seems to me is involved in many of the topics on page 1, and that's the preparation time issue. Teacher representatives had the opportunity to speak to local MPPs in the past couple of weeks about this issue, and it seems to me there is still a fair degree of misunderstanding about what preparation time means and about what reducing preparation time means to the school system in Lincoln and across this province.
I've listed for you at the top of page 2 a number of activities that I see daily in our schools for which teachers use their preparation time. I also want to make clear, as the previous speaker did, that teachers are assigned for about the same amount of time on a regular basis to substitute for other teachers or for other duties within the school. You heard some of those suggestions from other groups earlier as well.
1250
I don't think any of you doubt that the school day bears very little relationship to the total time that a teacher devotes to the job of teaching. I'm sure some of you have friends and acquaintances who regularly spend their evenings and weekends marking and preparing and involved in a variety of activities that relate to the students they are responsible for.
The main point that we attempted to make to Mr Froese and Mr Sheehan in the past couple of weeks is that reducing teacher preparation time does not mean I get to devote more time to my students. If you give me additional students for part of my preparation time, whatever part that is, you're asking me to spend time with additional students but you're certainly not allowing students to have more time with teachers and you're certainly not allowing me to have more time with the students I already teach.
If I already teach 90 students a day and you ask me to teach another class, what you really get as a result is less time with each of those students, because I don't have the time to work on individual problems that individual learners have. I don't have the time to create the kind of learning environment or materials that are necessary to assist students who need that help.
Ontario has prided itself on the fact that we have attempted to accommodate the needs of a huge variety of students, from new Canadians to your sons and daughters and mine to students who have all kinds of special needs. Over the years that I've been involved in teaching I can give you hundreds of examples of the way that teachers have attempted to meet those individual needs. If you take away whatever fraction of their so-called preparation time, all you do is reduce the amount of time available in total to all of those students; you don't increase the amount of time allowed for me to deal more effectively with students in a school context.
Some of the members of your committee here today have offered suggestions or comments along the lines of, "Learning does not necessarily take place in the classroom." I couldn't agree more. I've been involved in co-op education for very nearly 20 years in Lincoln county and I can tell you hundreds of very positive stories about the benefits of what students learn outside of schools.
That happens every day, and it doesn't just happen in co-op education. It happens in all kinds of activities that are organized around schools and it involves everything from sports to music to drama to hundreds of other activities. I don't think I should have to convince you, as thinking adults and for the most part parents, about the benefits to our children of the kinds of things they were able to do that were not necessarily in the classroom but were certainly organized for the most part by teachers around schools.
Down at the bottom of page 2, I've tried to outline for you what I see as some of the negative effects of cuts to teacher preparation time. I don't think any of them can be seen as leading to improved quality of education in this province. It seems to me that it has exactly the opposite effect. I think you would understand that teachers might be more than a little resentful when you talk about mandating working conditions that have taken 20 or 30 or more years to negotiate in this province.
We've had by and large very good relationships with our school board. There have been times when we've had major differences, but we've never had to resort to a full withdrawal of services. We've always been able to work out our differences. It has taken time. It has taken careful work. It has taken a great deal of talking, a great deal of consultation, to work out some of the major problems.
We've gone through a period of very serious downsizing both in terms of number of employees and in terms of our total school budgets across this province and in Lincoln county, especially over the past five years. The toll is telling on our membership and they are feeling the stresses. We cannot improve the quality of education, we cannot assist our students, by simply saying teachers can do more with less. We have done more and we've done more with less, but we are at the point where if we don't have some very careful consideration of where we're going and how we get there, we are definitely on a collision course.
I fear greatly for the welfare of my grandchildren, because they have been denied access to junior kindergarten when they surely are ready for it. The royal commission, to which one of your members referred a few minutes ago, not only clearly encouraged it but insisted that we need to spend a great deal of time working on early childhood education.
We seem to have lost sight of the fact that we're not talking now about a few individuals determining what's best for the rest of our world as we know it in Ontario, but that we need to consult in a much broader fashion not just with teachers but with parents and the rest of the community, and we need to be able to assure ourselves that we are not moving precipitously through a process that does not allow for the consultation required to create the best quality education in the province of Ontario.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Brown, for your presentation here this morning.
The time is 12:58 and we're going to lunch till 1:30. We have a very heavy day. I believe we have 17 presentations this afternoon, so we need to start on time. I will see you all at 1:30. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1258 to 1330.
ONTARIO PRINCIPALS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If you would identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed, I would be much obliged. We have 30 minutes allotted for your presentation.
Mr Lance Gianelli: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. My name is Lance Gianelli, and I am the vice-president of the Ontario Principals' Association. Immediately to my left is Mr Paul Kelly, the secretary of the Ontario Principals' Association; and immediately to my right is Marlene De Rose, who is president of the Ontario Principals' Association. For the purpose of the record too, it should be noted that we are all practising, full-time principals. I will now refer committee members to the brief we have provided, and indeed you will see that it is a brief brief to allow some opportunity for dialogue, but it puts into the record the views of the Ontario Principals' Association.
On behalf of the Ontario Principals' Association, my colleagues and I are pleased to take this opportunity to discuss Bill 160, as presented to the House in first and second readings during the first session of the 36th Legislature of the province of Ontario in 1997.
By way of introduction, let me elaborate on just what the Ontario Principals' Association is and who we represent. The Ontario Principals' Association is a voluntary group of principals and vice-principals from across the province. We choose to associate because of our common roles as educators and school administrators. Currently, we have approximately 900 members working in Catholic, public, government and independent elementary schools. There is no secondary school membership at this time. It is also important to note that our members are statutory members of their respective teachers' federations.
Bill 160's subtitle suggests four objectives of the government in presenting this bill to the House for the consideration of members: first, to reform the education system; second, to protect classroom funding; third, to enhance accountability; and fourth, to make other improvements. These objectives are said to be consistent with the government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size.
Today we will argue that the bill as presented at both readings does focus on the first three specific objectives but that it clearly misses the mark with the general objective of improvement consistent with education quality. Little if anything in this bill deals with improved student performance. Indeed, this bill, like Bills 31 and 104 which preceded it, fundamentally deals with power and control, who holds it and how it is exercised. In many ways this bill tends to lay out the rules of engagement for stakeholders within the education system. It does not prescribe specific targets for improvement, such as anticipated classroom populations or how these targets would be achieved.
We acknowledge that subsequent regulations will specify many areas in more detail, but today we would like to deal with three specific areas of concern found within the bill. Further, we will highlight a broad spectrum of concern relative to aspects of the bill which we feel are labour-management issues. These issues need to be dealt with by the parties concerned in an honest forum for negotiations, without the pressure of an impending third reading. We will make recommendations for your consideration.
First of all, let us say that there are some aspects of this bill which we see as positive. By example, we were pleased to see that school councils are clearly defined as advisory. We were heartened that directors of education would continue to be expected to hold teachers' qualifications and that principals would continue to be "a teacher appointed by a board to perform...the duties of a principal" and that "a teacher" means a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. This stream of academic responsibility is important within an academic community.
We do, however, have the three concerns which I would like to highlight now.
Our first concern we have subtitled "Classes of Teachers." I will refer you to sections of the bill, and you may look back to these later.
Section 81, subsection 170.1(4), allows that by regulation "different classes of teachers" may be established.
Section 81, subsection 170.1(5), allows that "It shall not be presumed that a person is required to be a teacher."
These subsections are incompatible with section 1, which defines a teacher as "a member of the Ontario College of Teachers." Furthermore, in order to be a member of the College of Teachers, one must be "qualified to teach in the province and is required to maintain an Ontario teaching certificate." This quote comes from the College of Teachers.
Continuing with the bill, section 118, subsection (2), allows that a person who is designated under the previous clause, 170.1(3)(e), "is not required to be a teacher."
Unqualified teachers will lack the necessary professional training and background to succeed with learners in the 21st century. Multiclasses of teachers will dilute professional standards about to be set forth by the College of Teachers. So it follows that our recommendation in this area is that these subsections need to be amended by deletion from the bill.
Our second concern deals with the rights of membership for principals and vice-principals.
Section 10: Subsection (3) allows that the principals and vice-principals "shall remain on duty when the school in which they are employed is closed."
Section 123: Subsection 277.11(1) allows that "principals and vice-principals are not allowed to participate in a strike," and continuing in 277.11(2), allows that they "shall remain on duty during a strike."
These sections effectively transfer key elements of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act into Bill 160. By doing so, it limits the rights of membership for principals and vice-principals within their respective bargaining units and again creates two classes of members. Principals and vice-principals acknowledge their duty of care to students. However, once this duty has been fulfilled, they should be allowed to participate fully with their federation.
Our recommendation is that these subsections need to be amended by substitution, allowing for principals and vice-principals to exercise the same rights as other federation members, once their duty of care to their students has been fulfilled.
Our third area of concern is the lack of public accountability for the Education Improvement Commission.
Section 133, subsection (4.1), allows that the Education Improvement Commission would continue but end on or before December 31, 2000.
Section 138, subsections (1) and (2), allows for "no proceedings or damages" to be brought against members of the commission, members of committees or other persons acting on behalf of the EIC.
These provisions extend the immunity currently offered to these public officials, all of whom report directly to the minister. These employees of the government have authority without public accountability. Why should they not be governed by law?
Our recommendation is that these subsections should be amended by substitution, allowing for members of the EIC and its committee or others acting on behalf of the EIC to be subject to all federal and provincial laws.
1340
Our fourth concern is the spectrum which I mentioned earlier, the labour-management spectrum that is found deeply embedded in this bill.
The deepest issues of concern for all Ontarians are those which have emerged to pit the province's teachers against the government of the day. These issues can all be grouped under the labour-management dispute umbrella. Again, these are issues of power and control.
The government has an economic-political agenda, while teachers have enjoyed decades of collective bargaining with local trustees. The recent assent of Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, has upset the equilibrium within the province. Now with little authority and vast geographic responsibilities, boards cannot balance the power of the central government. Teachers' unions understand the implications of a law which permits the unilateral authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations concerning education. Many areas identified in Bill 160 will determine a teacher's conditions for employment and later govern the teacher's conditions of work. Caused by regulation, any input can be sidestepped.
Historically, such matters were negotiated through the collective bargaining process. While Bill 160 outlines a new collective bargaining process, it also delimits the scope of such bargaining. A Lieutenant Governor in Council's regulation allows no mechanism for public input in advance and no due process for review once implemented.
Subsection 7(3), subsection (5), allows for regulation to require up to five days of work preceding the start of the school year.
Subsection 7(11), subsection (7), allows for regulation to prescribe the school year, terms, holidays etc.
Section 81, subsection 170.1(1), (2) and (3), allows for regulation to determine class size, teaching time and other duties.
In this case we offer two recommendations to your committee for consideration: Recommendation 1 is that these subsections need to be amended by deletion in order to draw the teachers back to the bargaining table; recommendation 2 is that these subsections may need to be declared inoperative in order to provide the necessary time for honest negotiations to take place. The Lieutenant Governor in Council should appoint, by order, a joint committee of stakeholders to: determine a resolution mechanism for disputes surrounding conditions for employment and conditions of work; rescript these sections ready for amendment by substitution.
In summary, Bill 160 has become a lightning rod for controversy. It strives to reform education while promoting the quality agenda. In its present form it fails to do so. Instead of achieving consensus among stakeholders, it serves to divide traditional partners and places the government at odds with its teachers. As an all-party review committee, we call upon you to put partisan politics aside and reaffirm the underlying values of the democratic process. Governments must be responsive to the needs and input of all its citizens and then enact change through the legislative process. The government should not be given the unfettered use of resolution by the minister or the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Collective bargaining has a place in dispute resolution.
Provide this minister with the amendments necessary for the government to bring all the stakeholders back together again. It is only then that the true pursuit of the quality agenda can begin in earnest.
The Chair: We have just under five minutes for each caucus.
Mr Lessard: I want to thank you for your presentation. I note that you saved the best for last with respect to your concerns and your suggestions. That was with respect to the labour-management issues. I'm sure you did that in anticipation of this morning's announcement with respect to the intentions of the teachers. There was a motion that was debated earlier this morning -- however, it was defeated -- that was attempting to address the concerns you raised with respect to trying to bring the teachers back to the table and avoid this impending catastrophe that is set to happen next Monday.
You make these recommendations, I would think, from your long experience in the profession. I wonder if you think that the recommendations that you've made to remove those subsections are indeed going to be enough to bring the teachers back to the bargaining table.
Mr Gianelli: That would have to be a question you would direct to the union leaders. As a voluntary organization, we can't respond to that. What we are suggesting to the members present is that you need to buy time for negotiations to continue so that girls and boys can be in school. Currently, we have the situation where a third reading is imminent. That third reading is causing the time frames. We're suggesting that there might be a way that your committee can cause the government to extend the time deadline. We feel honest negotiation needs time.
Mr Wildman: I agree with you completely. I think you would agree we're in a completely unprecedented situation in education in Ontario, where an essentially small-c conservative group, the teachers, have become so concerned and upset about the future of education and their own collective bargaining rights and their jobs that they're prepared to take what I said was an unprecedented action, which I suspect will put your members, as well as the students and a lot of other people, in a very difficult position.
I think there needs to be a cooling-off period. There needs to be time for both sides to rethink, to look for new solutions and to consult in a meaningful way with one another, keeping in mind that the students are the most important people in education. I very much appreciate your presentation and hope that, on all sides, cooler heads will prevail and that we can have some time to really work these things out, recognizing the success of the collective bargaining process since Bill 100 was passed and keeping in mind that the students are the people the education system is supposed to serve. It's most unfortunate that they will be used by both sides to try to make a negotiating point.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation this afternoon. I was particularly interested in page 3 of your presentation, which dealt with concern number 2 and the rights of membership for principals and vice-principals. When I met with principals and vice-principals in my own riding, as you can appreciate, we had some fairly direct and energetic discussions around the whole issue of whether or not principals and vice-principals should be included in the collective bargaining unit. I accepted their viewpoint and subsequently conveyed that to the minister.
The government of Ontario has accepted the viewpoint that you play a different role and it was not appropriate to pull you out of that collective unit, given the leadership and managerial and collegial requirements that you have within your school community. Having said that, given the discussions we have, I'm somewhat struck by the viewpoint presented here by comparison to what I heard in my own constituency office. If principals and vice-principals are to be, as I suspect they are and fully agree with, the professionals they profess to be, why then would you make this proposal?
Mr Gianelli: By way of introduction, my school is in London, Ontario, so I'm sure you've spoken with several of my colleagues. The Ontario Principals' Association is not suggesting in this that principals and vice-principals should be removed from their federations. To the contrary, we are acknowledging that the minister has made a decision to allow principals and vice-principals to be full statutory members of their federations, as they have been throughout the history of federation.
1350
What we are saying today is that by transposing elements of Bill 100 into Bill 160, you continue to put principals in a situation such as they will be placed in on Monday, where, as full statutory members, they have a conflict of law. Our recommendation on page 3 that you refer to is simply to take a look at the conflict that is created by making that transposition from Bill 100, and to amend by substitution a form in which principals and vice-principals can see to the physical care of their children and then be able to participate with their colleagues.
Mr Smith: Thank you for that clarification. What do you envision the role of principals and vice-principals of the future to be?
Mr Paul Kelly: Given the situation we're in right now, it's certainly up in the air, I guess. The bill specifically lays out what the expectations are. The present act that is in place specifies the role of the principal and vice-principal and their duties. For us to speculate -- again, we represent a group of principals and vice-principals, we don't represent every principal and vice-principal in the province. It's really a difficult position, given the fact that we're in the federation as well as representing on this particular committee. It's difficult for us to expand on what the role might be in light of the present legislation that's in front of us, but we do know that we have an expectation, given what's already in place.
Mr Smith: I appreciate the complexity of the situation you're in, but surely you're not handcuffed by federations in terms of having a vision of what you think you ought to be doing in the future in terms of your involvement in your own school community or as colleagues in this association.
Mrs Marlene De Rose: I would say, if I may speak, that our view of the job as a principal in the school is very clear in most of our minds; it has much to do with the expectation that our communities have of us. We certainly are the lead teacher. I still do teach, not on the timetable but I certainly do teach, although I hope not many of my staff are listening because I think they might challenge me on that this year.
I think it is important that we maintain a consistent contact with our children as well as our staff. I think another major role that we play, have always played and will continue to play, is the role of liaison with our community, and not just the parents in our community but the business members in our community as well. We do represent the values in the belief system of the children who come from the community that we represent.
Mrs McLeod: I too am glad you're here. I was concerned when we saw the minister's original list that there was no principal representation, and a few minutes later, when a revised list was presented and we saw the Ontario Principals' Association. I said to Mr Smith at the time, "I'm not exactly sure who they are." I know about elementary associations and secondary and separate school and public school. I'm now glad to know who you are and appreciate your explaining the membership to us.
I also appreciate the fact that you have addressed what in my view is the key issue in being able to step back from the brink and provide a cooling-off period that might allow us to avoid the confrontation that's brewing on Monday. People who have been sitting through the committee today will know I'm feeling rather emotional about the whole thing.
Just before lunch break somebody said, "We've come full circle." I think that's true, unless we go into full retreat. I feel today as though we're into full retreat. I think that because I got drawn back into school board politics a lot of years ago, before Bill 100, in the midst of a brewing strike -- there were no strikes then, of course -- confrontation with the OSSTF.
My personal goal throughout what became an unprecedented job action -- mass resignations, a very bitter local situation -- became to talk to whoever called me -- your phones explode, I warn my colleagues, in a situation like this -- to try and persuade them of the validity of the other side, knowing that at the end of the day we'd have to work together in the interests of education.
I actually think that if this committee had some authority we might be able to sit down in a locked room and make some proposals that would provide that cooling-off period, but I'm not sure that we aren't largely peripheral to what's going on.
My first question to you is, what teachers are facing in your school, the casting of teachers as enemies, as not being trusted, has the government created such an enmity with teachers that, however this ends, whenever it ends, real partnership for education is going to be virtually impossible?
Mrs De Rose: If I might respond, when we went back to school this fall -- I'm going to go about this in a circuitous route -- already there was tension in the air. At one of our early staff meetings when we were planning the fall curriculum, one of my staff members said to me: "I can't do this. I don't want to do this. Why are we doing all of these changes again? There is another new curriculum. You're making me do this all over again. I'm frustrated. We don't know what's going to happen." I said: "May I tell you something? Your job is to work with the children in the classes every day. They will arrive expecting you to meet them at the door with a smiling face and a plan to keep them actively involved in learning. My job will be to try and carry you over that sill to the political agenda."
As administrators, what we've been trying to do in our schools -- all of us, not the three of us, but administrators across this province -- has been to attempt to keep our teachers protected so that they can deal with the issues of the day with their children while we try and deal with the larger issues with the government.
We've done a very good job of that. I pat all three of us and all the rest of my colleagues on the back. The fact that our teachers are so up in arms says something to me: "I have had enough." One of my teachers who walked on the picket line a few weeks ago said to me: "I have sunglasses on because I really don't want anybody to see me, but I'm here. I'm a very tall lady and there goes my husband and he's waving to me. You know what? I need to stand up and be counted because everything that I have done for 25 years is going down the tube because nobody will listen to me." That's my answer.
Mr Gianelli: Mrs McLeod, may I give another perspective on this as well? Each morning when I get to my school at quarter after 8, my gym is already active and has been active from quarter to 8 in the morning. There are three teachers in there with a group of children. Every day at noonhour that facility is being used by children and men and women who work for you. Every night when I'm leaving at quarter to 6, that gym is still going on.
The teachers in this province are trying to -- we're elementary school principals -- certainly keep it away from the children. They are continuing to provide the kinds of service that all of us and all of you can be proud of. Can we see a future after this political protesting and after Bill 160 is amended? Certainly we can.
Mrs McLeod: If it's amended.
The Vice-Chair (Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins): Thanks for your time. It has expired. Thanks for the presentation.
ST CATHARINES AND DISTRICT COUNCIL OF WOMEN
The Vice-Chair: I would like to call on the next presenter, the St Catharines and District Council of Women, Mary Potter.
Ms Milica Kovacevich: This is Mary Potter, who is the president of the St Catharines and District Council of Women. My name is Milica Kovacevich and I am the secretary of the council and will be making the presentation today.
The St Catharines and District Council of Women was founded in 1918, and we are one of 22 local councils now in existence across Canada. Our mission is to work towards improving the quality of life for women, families and society. The Council of Women is an umbrella organization affiliated with groups spanning religious, cultural, professional, political and social service groups. The St Catharines and district council consists of about 20 affiliated groups and an equal number of individual members. Through a resolutions process, policy is set at the international, national and provincial levels of council, and we are obliged to speak only to this policy that has been democratically set.
1400
With this in mind, I will address only certain areas of Bill 160, those that we have a policy on. Since 1923, the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario has passed resolutions on education and sent them in a brief to the government of the day. The most recent resolutions included in 1996 were teacher-child ratio for junior and senior kindergarten, native studies in Ontario schools and skilled labour training; in 1997 were resolutions to keep physical education as a component of the compulsory curriculum at all levels of the school system, and for the government to affirm its commitment to public education. We urged the government to financially support public education at progressive levels because a lowering of the financial base will usher in a private education system that favours the wealthy. Families will be forced to pay the penalty for quality education and a two-tier education system will be created.
We also favour local governance of school systems. Parents would like to have a say in their child's education through their local trustee. It would also be beneficial to the community to have some stability in the education system rather than having it change with each newly elected government.
Reduction in funding to education has meant the elimination of some courses which the council of women think are important to the development of a healthy adult. For example, the family studies program has been eliminated in several school boards, and this means the cutting of parenting and life skills courses. Many physical education classes have also been eliminated, so students do not learn the importance of exercise throughout life. It also puts the teaching of human sexuality in jeopardy since this is usually included in physical education and health courses.
Early childhood education is an area we are working to establish policy on this year. A major study by the Royal Commission on Learning called for the extension of universal public schooling not only to four-year-olds but to three-year-olds. Studies have been done about the limited time young children have to activate nerve cells, and early stimulation can help disadvantaged children catch up physically and intellectually. With cuts in funding, the quality of education is compromised.
One of the changes in Bill 160 is the reduction of preparation time for teachers. Besides being used for preparing teaching material, this time is important for other aspects of a child's life. Other professionals may need to be consulted, such as a psychologist, because a situation at home may be interfering with a child's learning. Preparation time may include keeping up with developments in curriculum, providing individualized help to students, working with other teachers on joint projects. If these are reduced, the quality of education for children is reduced.
With a reduction in the number of teachers comes an increase in class sizes. This means that a teacher is able to spend less time with special-needs students such as the hearing-impaired or physically disabled children. The quality of education for our special-needs students is reduced.
In 1977 we urged the Ministry of Education to give physical and health education high priority in teacher training courses, to encourage each school board to emphasize participation rather than competition and emphasize individual life-time sports rather than team sports. We are concerned that these priorities of individual development may be lost with having unqualified persons teach physical education.
One area the council of women would like to see addressed is apprenticeship programs. In order to prepare adequate numbers of people to meet the present and anticipated needs for skilled workers, young people need to be attracted into apprenticeship programs early in secondary school. Educational institutions should work in an integrated system with labour and industry to fill this need.
In conclusion, the St. Catharines and District Council of Women is concerned about the changes proposed in Bill 160. Many of these changes will decrease the quality of education, which in turn will compromise the development of the child, lower the benefit to the community and make Ontario a poorer province. We think that high-quality education should be a priority for the government. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for that presentation. We have just a little bit less than a minute per caucus. The government side first.
Mr Smith: Thank you for your presentation. I couldn't agree more with the viewpoints you expressed, particularly the issues centring around the needs of special-needs students. That is one of the key areas of the new funding model and one that is requiring some very careful consideration, so I appreciate your highlighting those for our attention. The other area I agree with you on is your second-last paragraph, the individual charged with the responsibility of forming apprenticeship in Ontario. I couldn't agree more with your concluding statement, "Educational institutions should work in an integrated system with labour and industry to fill this need." Certainly your recommendations are very timely as we move forward to change and improve the apprenticeship system in this province. Thank you very much for your presentation.
The Vice-Chair: To the Liberal Party now.
Mr Bradley: I want to note first of all your emphasis on local governance and how important that is going to be and your worry that the bill will remove much of the local governance. I was happy that you noted that. You mentioned your concern about a two-tier education system developing as well. Let me put the question this way: What consequences do you believe we will see as a result of a further $667 million being removed from the education system, as has been stipulated within the draft contract for the Deputy Minister of Education, where she was told that she should get $667 million more out, in addition to the $533 million already removed. What would be the consequences, in your view, for our education system?
Ms Kovacevich: I suppose, also talking as a parent of three young children in elementary school -- the position, first, of the local council of women is to continue public education, to ensure that survives. When we start to eliminate funding for our public education system, that obviously will have to open the doors for other types of education venues to come forward. What we can see happening is that parents who can afford to pay for alternative forms of education will remove their children from the public education system because obviously that public education system won't be able to afford some of the things a privately funded school or other form of education may be able to provide.
The Vice-Chair: To the other party now.
Mr Wildman: First, I really appreciate your presentation, particularly your emphasis on early childhood education and physical education and health education and so on. I noticed that the parliamentary assistant said that special-needs students will be an important part of the funding formula. As you may know, we don't yet know what the funding formula is, nor do we know how much money is going to be taken out of education as a result of the powers given to the minister under Bill 160. The $670 million has come out, and it has been confirmed that that is in the document by the government. Do you think it would be sensible to hold off on the passage of this legislation into law until we know the exact amounts of money the government is prepared to commit to education of our students and how the funding formula would work?
Ms Kovacevich: Whether it's for that reason, I would hope we put off the potential strike because I don't think it's in the best interests of anyone.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, but our time is very short. I know that.
Ms Kovacevich: I had a good story to tell. I really did.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, while the next presenters are coming forward, I understand that the Minister of Education indicated again today that he did not believe that any alternatives had been put forward, any positive, constructive suggestions. It was said to him at that time that this committee meeting on Bill 160 has received a number of alternatives, a number of recommendations, and the minister apparently said, "Well, I haven't seen them."
Obviously the work we're doing is concurrent with other events that are very critical. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to ensure that the Minister of Education on a critical needs basis is receiving the recommendations that come forward from presenters to this committee. Over the last two days we've had a great many constructive suggestions, alternatives, proposals, including proposals from the teachers' federations, as to major parts of the bill which they could accept. We also have just recently had, I think, a very constructive recommendation from the Ontario Principals' Association in terms of a proposal that would give us a cooling-off period, and I hope the parliamentary assistant will convey those as immediately as possible to the minister.
The Vice-Chair: I'm sure he will.
1410
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS'ASSOCIATION, LINCOLN COUNTY
The Vice-Chair: Calling the next group to the seats, OECTA, Lincoln County. I would also like to welcome to the committee hearings this afternoon Frank Sheehan and Bart Maves.
Would you introduce yourselves for Hansard? Your time is starting.
Mrs Karen Dunn: My name is Karen Dunn. I am a teacher with 33 years of experience, the last 12 of which I have devoted to teaching junior and senior kindergarten. I would like to introduce two of my colleagues, Tom Purser and Salli MacDonald. Tom will address the effects of this legislation on elementary schools and Salli will speak from a secondary school perspective.
Mr Tom Purser: I'm the president of the Lincoln county separate school board's principals' association and represent both the elementary and the secondary panel. Salli and I are here this afternoon about the proposed implementation of Bill 160 which, instead of harnessing and utilizing the power and strengths of our professionals, is sterilizing them.
This government is burning bridges instead of building bridges. This government is looking for simplistic answers, rather than working in partnership with stakeholders to solve problems together. This government has gone on record as saying that education in Ontario is broken and needs to be fixed. The former minister wanted to create a crisis in a system which is recognized worldwide for its excellence. The crisis is here. Our teachers and students are at the centre of the crisis, although we did not create it.
The demeaning of teachers as special-interest groups is an insult to the teachers who have devoted their lives to the education of our children. Teachers are professionals who have knowledge, skills, experience and integrity. I am proud to be the principal of a large elementary school in Lincoln county. Every day I see professional teachers demonstrating their commitment to excellence in our school. Despite the constant barrage of insults and insinuations about the lack of quality in education, the teachers with whom I work come to our school filled with enthusiasm for young children.
Every day I see my fellow teachers arrive long before classes begin. They work long before the day officially starts, running extracurricular programs like cross-country, volleyball practices, meeting with parents about students who have problems or concerns, to name a few. I see teachers remaining at school long after school has ended. They stay at school to provide extra programs for students in need, to run crafts clubs, chess clubs, to practise for choir and drama presentations, to plan implementation, yes, for ministry programs. I see teachers giving up their lunch-hours to run Rainbows programs for students in need.
These are typical happenings in any school in this province. These activities are carried on through the free choice of teachers. Teachers are committed to providing the best, well-rounded education for their children. What benefit does this teacher-bashing serve when we have committed people in our schools right now?
Teachers readily accept a multitude of roles as educators, curriculum planners, decision-makers, counsellors, social workers, coaches, advisers to parents, and the list goes on.
One of our grave concerns about Bill 160 is that it will allow uncertified, unqualified people to assume these critical roles. While these individuals may have their own expertise, they will lack the accompanying teacher training that makes a crucial difference for our young people. Teachers know how students learn, how to evaluate student progress and how to manage a class. Teachers know that instruction in one area does not occur in isolation from instruction in other areas. Teachers are knowledgeable about the essential stages of development, socialization and learning. Teachers are already subject to rigorous standards and expectations. Within our board, we consistently recognize our teachers as our key resource. Why would you ever introduce legislation that would alter this?
We are especially concerned about the possibility of employing non-teachers in the early childhood area. We applaud our board's decision to continue junior kindergarten classes despite the reduction in provincial funding. This is one important example that illustrates why decisions should continue to be made at the local level.
The junior and senior kindergarten teachers of the Lincoln county Catholic school board are among the best in the province. We do not want them replaced with uncertified personnel. Research has shown that quality education for four- and five-year-olds is critical for later success. Why toy with this important area?
This government doesn't seem to be in touch with reality, certainly not with the reality of our schools in Lincoln county Catholic. In our schools we have worked collaboratively with senior administration, trustees, teachers, parents and priests to deal with all the cutbacks we have faced up until now. We have had to work hard, or actually work harder, because of funding inadequacies. We are already doing double duty. We do not want this bill to make teaching and learning conditions even more difficult or virtually impossible.
Now I ask Salli to go ahead with the secondary.
Mrs Salli MacDonald: I wish to address two issues which I believe are of critical importance. One relates to the use of a legislative process that contravenes the principles of democracy, and the other relates specifically to the effects just one aspect of Bill 160 will have on the quality of education in my own secondary school.
As teachers in Ontario we have an obligation to promote the values inherent in a democratic society and as teachers in a Catholic school system. We have an even greater responsibility to respond when the democratic values that support social justice are being dismissed out of hand by our political leaders.
Bill 160 signals the demise of democracy in the field of education. This government has already reduced the number of duly elected trustees and now it says that parents will exercise more influence through their role in school councils. But parents should not be duped. With the passage of Bill 160, nothing of importance will be left to local decision-making. This bill centralizes power in the hands of the minister and the cabinet. It permits far-reaching decisions to be made without public consultation or even public scrutiny. The extent of this power grab is unprecedented in this province.
The last time I heard the term "enabling legislation" was in a history class, and it was with reference to Adolf Hitler in 1934. To hear this term used by this government and even our own MPP for St Catharines-Brock in 1997 should chill us all to the very bone.
Now I'd like to turn to one of the most misunderstood aspects of Bill 160 which will have a major impact on the quality of education in my own secondary school.
Government propaganda would lead us to believe that prep time is at best a luxury we can no longer afford and at worst a waste of teacher time and taxpayer money. The minister says that a reduction in prep time will increase the time a teacher spends with his or her students. As a teacher and as a principal, I know that this is a fallacy. Since the government has proposed no change to the number of credit hours, a reduction in prep time can mean only one thing: one more class for each teacher. In my school, the number of pupil-teacher contacts would jump from approximately 190 to 220 and we would lose at least 15 teachers.
Prep time is no luxury. In a secondary school it's used to research and prepare materials, collaborate with colleagues, confer with students as individuals or in small groups, contact parents and to evaluate assignments. I know first hand that there is no way preparation time can accommodate all the out-of-class activities that are an integral part of teaching --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Our 10 minutes have expired.
Mrs MacDonald: May I just make my final conclusion?
The Vice-Chair: Real quick.
Mrs MacDonald: I say these things not to paint a picture of any extreme but to illustrate the reality. We urge the government to back off, to slow down and to work towards educational change in partnership with all its stakeholders, please, for the sake of our young people.
1420
QUAKER ROAD SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL
The Vice-Chair: I call the next group, the Quaker Road School Advisory Council, Greg Reid, past chair.
Mr Greg Reid: For the record, my name is Greg Reid. I am first and foremost a parent of two elementary school children. My older son, Nathan, is 11 years old and my younger son, Zachary, is eight years old. I've been a long-time Niagara South Board of Education volunteer. I'm a current parent member and past chair of the Quaker Road School Advisory Council.
I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for providing both the forum and the opportunity to speak with regard to Bill 160. My involvement with the public school education system began when my oldest son, Nathan, entered the school system in junior kindergarten.
I was pleasantly surprised, given my lack of knowledge of the public education system at that point, with the level of active participation allowed the parents within the system. Parents were allowed to actively become involved in their children's learning environment. My wife and I took advantage of this opportunity to become as actively involved in our sons' education as our careers would allow. The more involved I became, unfortunately, the more frustrated I became with school governance and management systems which, time after time, put their own agenda ahead of the needs of the students.
We're from Welland, Ontario, by the way. For those of you who aren't familiar with Welland, in 1990 the separate school board opened a new office in Welland, on the corner of Rice Road and Quaker Road, at a cost of $6.8 million. It quickly became referred to by the local populace as the Taj Mahal: marble floors, the director of education's original plans had an exercise unit, a personal exercise room set aside from his office. On the grand opening of this building, over 250 people were outside protesting, many of them teachers who were disgusted with the fact that close to $7 million was being spent on a board of education building when right next door at an elementary school eight to 10 portables were being utilized by the school population. Obviously, the needs of the board were put ahead of the students in that case.
I was more frustrated and somewhat disgusted when our own Niagara South Board of Education dumped millions of dollars into renovations to its own building two or three years ago. It had a more direct impact on my situation as at the time my sons were involved in an elementary school called Lloyd Rice school, a small school on Quaker Road: six rooms indoors, four portables outdoors, no gymnasium, no computer systems to speak of -- a couple of 10-year-old Texas Instruments computers for the kids to work with -- no playground equipment, not much of anything in the way of facilities. Yet our Niagara South Board of Education chose to plan and proceed with plans to spend in the millions of dollars in renovating their own facilities.
At this point, I became very frustrated with the system and decided to get more involved. I agreed to act as the chair of the first Quaker Road School Advisory Council two years ago. It was shortly after we formed our first council that we became aware of a cost-saving issue, and this was in the fall of 1995, when there was a lot of consternation in general about board budgets.
This cost-saving issue could have resulted in significant savings to reinvest in programs which were targeted by the board for cuts. The Niagara South board in its infinite wisdom decided to cut the junior kindergarten program without consulting the parent community or any of the school advisory councils. They had also decided to cut back on special education assistance. Through our own school advisory council, we decided to get very involved.
I had a meeting with the director of the board of education, at which time he identified an issue that said if we were able to merge our busing programs with the separate school board, we'd be able to save in excess of $700,000 to $800,000, possibly as much as $1 million. The two boards actually shared the same transportation consultant on routing, and this consultant provided a report that said, "Here's what the savings would be if you two could get your act together." Unfortunately, the two boards don't get along.
We, as a school advisory council, decided to get involved in the process. We took it upon ourselves to contact our cohorts on the separate school side. The issue met with great acceptance. Everybody was in favour. It was going to get more buses off the street and it was going to save money that could be rolled back into junior kindergarten programs or more special education assistance.
Unfortunately, after receiving the initial support and direction from the director of education in attempting to build consensus for merging the separate and public busing systems at a potential cost saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars, for no apparent reason we were suddenly told to cease all our actions, that we had overstepped our boundaries.
The last group spoke about democracy in the schools. I don't see where cutting off an attempt by a school advisory council to further the schools and further the system in general is any form of democracy whatsoever.
Subsequently but not coincidentally, the public information officer, a lady by the name of Alice Russell, who reports directly to the director of education and who is now director of education and secretary-treasurer, joined our school advisory council as community representative. If there was ever a conflict of interest, someone who is the spin doctor for the board coming on to your school advisory council as the community representative I think would be stretching the mandate of policy memorandum number 122 a little bit.
This spin doctor has since attended all school advisory council functions that I and other members of the council attend, including in-service sessions, all sorts of other get-togethers they've had in terms of building the school advisory council, and has even gone so far in the last meeting of our council as to attempt to take over the role of chair of our school advisory council, in spite of her obvious conflict of interest and in spite of the current governing rules for school advisory councils contained in the Ministry of Education policy program number 122, which states that the chair of the council shall be a parent.
In a letter I received subsequent to a letter I had sent to her, advising her that she was ineligible, she said she is a parent -- she has some kids who are grown and out of the system, but she is a parent, obviously totally denying any semblance of respect for the intent of the memorandum.
The point of all this is that one of the major complaints I've heard about Bill 160 is that it's undemocratic and centralizes too much power in the government's hands. Yet the desperate tactics which the Niagara South Board of Education was willing to go to in order to control the entire education agenda, even at the expense of parent and taxpayer input, suggests that Bill 160's provisions with regard to school governance and the enhanced role of the school advisory councils in the operations of the schools will go a long way towards restoring democracy and accountability to school governance.
To summarize, I believe I speak for the silent majority when I say we are fed up with being told it's in our best interests for the teachers' unions and the boards to be in control of the education agenda. I don't have a vote on the union, I don't have a vote with the teachers; I do have a vote when the government's term comes up. For those reasons -- the majority of taxpayers and parents I have spoken to say they have no say in teacher union activities -- it's obvious by the illegal action which is proposed for this coming Monday that people are fed up. People have had enough.
The boards have over the years become a farce in terms of representing constituents. It's only through the input at the school advisory council level from those with the ultimate vested interest in the education system, namely, parents, that true democracy can be achieved.
The Vice-Chair: That's the end of the time. Thank you for your presentation.
1430
CONCERNED STUDENTS COALITION
The Vice-Chair: At this time I'd like to call on the Lincoln county student council presidents. If you would introduce yourselves for Hansard and make the presentation, we'd appreciate it.
Mr Paul Empringham: My name is Paul Empringham. I'm the student council president at Sir Winston Churchill. With me are Erin Coholan, Shona Maggio and Blair Wiley.
Ms Erin Coholan: I'm the student council president at Holy Cross secondary.
Ms Shona Maggio: I am a past president at Holy Cross high school and a member of the Concerned Students Coalition.
Mr Blair Wiley: I'm the president of West Park student council.
Mr Empringham: I have introduced myself. My title is not only president of Sir Winston Churchill. I am the chairman of the regional trustee student council, which deals with concerns of all the secondary schools in the Lincoln County Board of Education.
I am speaking on behalf of the Concerned Students Coalition, which is a new group that's been formed by the student leaders you see before you to represent every secondary school in St. Catharines, not just the Lincoln county board but also the Lincoln county Catholic board.
As a group we disagree with the situation we've been presented with. We disagree with the government's Bill 160 and the way it's being passed, and we disagree with the manner in which the teachers' union is handling the situation. We feel that changes need to be made to both parties' stances and to Bill 160 before any meaningful improvement in the quality of education can be accomplished. I will begin by briefly discussing the pros and cons as we see them.
A large problem with Bill 160 is the vagueness of it. It is a framework for future improvements, but as yet there are no figures available. This is a scary proposition to us as students: to have a bill passing without the hard facts that we have been taught are necessary.
Take Bill 104, for example. In it, the number of school boards to be cut was given as the bill was presented. This offered the public a realistic view of what was going to change. Everybody knew that 55 school boards were going to be cut and also where the amalgamation was going to take place. In Bill 160 we don't have the funding model yet so we don't know fully what the changes are going to be. We don't know what class size cap is going to be put in place. Without the funding model, I don't see how anyone can fully assess the quality and validity of the bill as it is presented.
As I mentioned before, the bill appears to be a framework for future improvements. As such, it gives considerable power to the government. The current government has promised many things with regard to its actions under the new bill. Let's take their side for a minute; the Conservative government may stick to their promises. But what happens when a new government is elected and the new education minister doesn't know the first thing about education?
To the government's credit, we agree that change is necessary in our education system and that improvements are very possible with the right types of changes. We also give them credit for seeing the problem the former education minister presented, and for changing internally so that the experienced problem solver in the form of David Johnson was set in charge of the ministry.
On the other hand, the teachers also have their flaws. They have said they won't negotiate until all their demands are met and much of Bill 160 is scrapped. We have been taught by the teachers to learn problem-solving skills. To my knowledge, coming with demands and not talking to the other party until all of those demands are met was not one of the lessons I have learned.
Also, the unions need to be realistic and fully understand that the deficit problem needs to be addressed. It's one of the largest problems we as Canadians face, and it's one that needs to be rectified. The union leaders, in our opinion, are being hypocritical. They accuse the government, on the one hand, of being undemocratic by not allowing the public to decide the fate of Bill 160, and on the other hand, they themselves are guilty of being undemocratic according to their own definition by not allowing the teachers to vote on strike action. They have in effect been given sweeping power over the actions of the teachers.
We must also look at what the teachers are doing for us. The teachers are standing up for what they believe in and are not giving in. They are the direct link between the students and the education system the government desperately needs in order to set policy and change the workings of the classroom. First-hand knowledge of the system is an invaluable asset that the teachers possess.
If I were to stop here, I myself would be guilty of being hypocritical. I oppose all of the naysaying that's going on without the backup of realistic recommendations. The Concerned Students Coalition has made a number of recommendations and I will share them with you:
The funding model is necessary to assess the quality of Bill 160. It should not be the mysterious variable that it is right now. It should be released before the passing of the bill.
The teachers should sit down with the government and negotiate rather than refusing to meet because their list of 18 demands hasn't been fulfilled.
Teachers need to have direct input into the education system, either through their collective bargaining or some other legislated means in order to preserve and improve the quality of education.
Both the government and the teacher's union have stated that the students are the number one priority in their negotiations, and they should be. If the controversy is about quality of education, we need to prioritize the students and ensure they get the education that is necessary for success. But if the students are the priority, as we have been told, then why are we in the position we're in? Why are the teachers going to strike on Monday and why is the government passing huge bills that aren't supported with facts and figures?
As a group, our stance is firmly between the two sides in this issue. Both need changes to the way they are conducting themselves and both need to work together to come up with a solution that meets the needs of the students and not their own personal agendas.
Now we have a couple of questions, if we could, to ask you.
The Vice-Chair: State the questions. You've got about a minute or a minute and a half together.
Ms Maggio: Our first question is directed to Mr Froese or Mr Smith. We, the students, find that the motions put forward by both Mrs McLeod and Mr Wildman this morning are very relevant, legitimate and applicable to Bill 160, but more significant now with this morning's announcement of the teachers' strike on Monday. We witnessed the rapid response by the Conservatives to defer these motions and are curious, Mr Froese or Mr Smith, if the Conservative members present today were scripted by their party to oppose all motions presented against Bill 160, without any consideration given first to the validity of these motions.
The Vice-Chair: A 30-second answer by one of you?
Mr Smith: A 30-second answer: No, we're not scripted to provide answers on behalf of the minister. We're here to receive the input of individuals who are making deputations today before this committee.
The Vice-Chair: Next question?
Ms Coholan: Besides deferring both motions presented today, what action is the government prepared to take to ensure that we and the other two million students in Ontario will remain in classes without interrupted education caused by a strike?
Mr Smith: I think the first action the minister is taking is one of leadership. He has continued to indicate to teachers that we are prepared to listen to them, to meet with them, to hear their concerns, and we still await that approach.
The Vice-Chair: You have one more minute.
Mr Wiley: We have one final question. The bill has already gone through second reading; it's almost passed into law. We were wondering if these public hearings are coming too late. Will the suggestions presented here today by the public and ourselves as students be taken directly into consideration in the improvement of Bill 160, or is this entire public hearing process a façade to quiet the outcry of this province? If you are taking these actions into consideration, how will they be applied to changing Bill 160?
Mr Smith: As I indicated, we have received a number of valuable pieces of information and input over the last two days. They will be given serious consideration. As parliamentary assistant one of the things I insisted upon -- in my past experience I had found it somewhat disappointing -- is that we are not going to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill immediately following the hearings concluding next week, and that allows us as government members, and the minister, to thoughtfully consider all the deputations that have been presented to us.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Your time has expired.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Chair: Could you indicate to the committee and refresh my memory: When do we have to have our proposed amendments, government and opposition amendments, tabled?
The Vice-Chair: Just before we get that answer, could I ask the next group to approach the table.
The answer to Mr Wildman is one week after the conclusion of the public hearings.
Mr Wildman: That means we have a week to prepare amendments based on the presentations here. I hope we take very seriously the presentations and have meaningful amendments to this bill.
1440
LINCOLN COUNTY CATHOLIC SCHOOL BOARD
The Vice-Chair: The Lincoln County Catholic School Board is next. Would you introduce yourself for Hansard.
Mrs Lorna Costantini: Good afternoon. My name is Lorna Costantini. I am the chair of the Lincoln County Catholic School Board. I am joined this afternoon by Kathy Burtnik, chair of the English-language section. Unfortunately, our director, John Dickhout, was called to the ministry office today and he has not returned. He had hoped to be with us today.
We are here on behalf of Lincoln County Catholic School Board. We would like to take the opportunity immediately to thank you for hearing our concerns on the proposed Bill 160. We hope that in the true spirit of consultation you will be open to our concerns and comments and give them consideration before you pass this bill.
At the outset we would like to begin with a public statement of support for the teachers of Lincoln County Catholic. We can speak with pride and experience of our own teachers, and we will tell you that service and sacrifice, each with a capital S, easily describe the commitment, caring and going the extra mile our teachers have demonstrated on behalf of Lincoln county.
It is extremely unfortunate that circumstances to date have forced a confrontation between the teachers' affiliates and the government. This does little to ensure effective problem-solving. We unequivocally do not support or condone an illegal withdrawal of services. We expect a solution to the current dispute to ensure that our students will not be negatively impacted.
Much emphasis has been put on the blame for the problems in education. No one in isolation can be blamed for the collective problems we face in education today, be it parents, teachers, school boards or the government. The message that the students of Ontario have been failed by our teachers is not true.
The responsibility for an education system is a shared one. How we have come to this point is a matter for debate and lengthy, unproductive discussion. What is more important for our students is, where we are going from here? Any discussion around the implementation of this bill should be solution-oriented.
There are strengths and weaknesses in any system. Recognizing that reality, we must build on the strengths which are prevalent in the current educational system. Build on the commitment and experience of a teaching profession dedicated to the education of our children. Build on the parent community which is committed to their children's education and is open and receptive to the responsibilities of school councils. Build on the trustees who are willing to take on the responsibilities of the new district school boards to ensure the continuity of quality of education in Ontario. Build on a government committed to making positive, effective change.
If there are weaknesses in the system, everyone should share in the responsibility for necessary improvement and address those weaknesses. When initiatives such as whole language, destreaming and common curriculum are introduced, sufficient resources need to be allocated to ensure their success. In the past, while these initiatives were in their own right good ideas, funding restrictions and very short implementation time lines resulted in little ability to provide the training, resources and professional development necessary to make them effective. Thus, in many cases, these government initiatives have failed our children.
It is our contention that excellence is best achieved with consistency in goals and objectives. This government appears to be setting mechanisms in place to ensure continuity of provincial objectives. We commend you for this and trust that you will use the lessons of past program implementations as you proceed to make changes.
When government educational policy is introduced, the focus should be on the effective delivery of programs and services. Consistent, long-term goal-setting should take into account the need for continuity of programs, flexibility of learning needs, learning environments and available funding.
Education policy should not be a reflection of a political climate. Rather it should be pedagogically sound and agreed upon through meaningful consultation with all the partners in education.
The establishment of the College of Teachers, the Education Quality and Accountability Office and grade 3 testing were designed to promote and ensure accountability, thereby improving education; excellent initiatives designed to improve education. We are supportive of their establishment and continued existence if they fulfil the intent of increasing excellence in education.
We see the inclusion, however, of issues which were previously negotiated as a major hurdle to the acceptance of Bill 160. For this bill is about other things. It is about amalgamation. Bill 160 was created to allow for the amalgamation of school boards. The transfer of assets and staff are all tied into this bill. The process of amalgamation should have minimal impact on students and it is unfortunate that the inclusion of these items has overshadowed the real purpose of the bill. The EIC and LEICs are working towards a smooth transition. We do not want to see this process jeopardized.
Bill 160 is also about equitable funding. It sets in place the mechanism required to implement equity in funding for all students in Ontario. In April, we voiced our opinions related to Bill 104. We, as others, asked for the details on the funding model. School boards have put their right to levy taxes in abeyance in order to effect and support the implementation of the new funding model. We are awaiting confirmation of this government's commitment to equity in funding for all students.
Asking the partners in education to unconditionally support a new funding model without knowing the level of funding, or the priorities of expending the funds, is extremely presumptuous.
As proposed, this change in funding can offer long-sought relief to the many assessment-poor boards that have struggled to meet the needs of their students under extremely tight financial conditions. There are second-class students in Ontario and these students can't wait.
Many have argued that the benefits of equalized dollars are not sufficient rationale to relinquish control of the education dollars from local school boards to the provincial mandate. If we are all working under the same premise, that equity and excellence in education is our goal, then shifting the control of funding which satisfies this goal should receive universal support. We do not, however, have the final model to fit together the pieces of the puzzle. If we had had it at the same time as the introduction of the bill, it would have gone a long way to remove the clouds of mistrust that have surrounded this process.
Bill 160 is also about school councils. There are provisions to legislate school councils and give official status to parental involvement. This recognition of the value of the role of parents in their children's education is long overdue. Parents are willing to be part of the educational process and this provision needs to be implemented without restriction.
The direction this government is taking is commendable -- improvement for all students in Ontario. Change is difficult and requires leadership to implement successfully. If change is required to improve the classroom environment and improve the education of students, no one can argue. We support the restructuring of education, whether it is in the reduction of trustees, administrators and school boards or the redesign of the school year calendar and the length of the school day, if these are proven to have a positive impact on the quality of education.
We repeat: If we are all working under the same premise, that equity and excellence in education are our goals and meeting student needs is our priority, change should receive universal support.
A lot of "could haves" and "should haves" won't change what has happened. Where we go from here will depend on the willingness of everyone involved to place the needs of students first.
The introduction of the issues of prep time, class size and uncertified teachers has served to complicate the implementation of a bill for education change. Our concerns around the issues that were previously negotiated is the lack of specifics. No one, and rightly so, is ready to commit when the percentage of prep time, the size of classes and role of uncertified teachers have yet to be established. If one were to set the class size at 40, remove all the prep time or place uncertified instructors in all the classrooms there would be little agreement on the inclusion of this item in the bill.
Boards, in conjunction with the ministry, should have the ability to organize the workplace to best suit the needs of students. Working conditions should not outweigh the needs of students. But there must be flexibility in place to recognize individual needs. Variable prep time, maximum class size and enhanced use of instructors who work in partnership with teachers, rather than in isolation, may be possible solutions. I have identified each one in greater depth and you can expand them. We have a model in Lincoln you may wish to look at. Kathy, please finish off for us.
The Vice-Chair: You've got about a minute.
Ms Kathy Burtnik: I'll go fast. Remove these issues from Bill 160. Deal with them in isolation as a separate bill. Don't eliminate them completely from the process, but let the bulk of the work of Bill 160 proceed until the government is able to reach a solution to the concerns. If indeed it is the sincere desire of this government to achieve a higher quality of education for our students, then these issues should be non-negotiable and highly supported by everyone.
If we keep the goal of equity and excellence for all students as the rationale for decisions, then acceptable solutions can not only be found but implemented with complete cooperation from all partners.
Our message in April was, "Take the time to do it right." Our message has not changed.
Effect the changes necessary to form the new district school boards, introduce the funding model, get agreement on its delivery and then work through what changes must be made to effect it. The government must not allow the issues which regulate the workplace to affect the implementation of a bill crucial to the creation of the new district school boards.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. I think you've run the time out; it does happen.
1450
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 36, WENTWORTH
The Vice-Chair: Our next group is OSSTF, District 36, Wentworth. Identify yourself for Hansard, and please start.
Ms Lynn Phelan: Good afternoon. I'm Lynn Phelan, chief negotiator of District 36, Wentworth, OSSTF. I'm here with my colleague Ilze Dreimanis. I wish to present a brief on behalf of our members.
When, on September 22 this year, then Minister of Education John Snobelen introduced Bill 160, the ironically named Education Quality Improvement Act, into the Ontario Legislature, he clearly signalled that the Harris government was intent on removing any local control and management of school affairs in Ontario, and replacing that control with far-reaching centralized powers beyond the checks and balances of the democratic process.
He also demonstrated with this bill the Harris government's disregard for the collective bargaining rights of 130,000 citizens, which have been legitimized for nearly 25 years.
This brief will deal with these two aspects of the bill which we consider reprehensible: the loss of local, democratically elected control over the education of our children, and the disregard for what have been considered for many years fundamental workers' rights in Ontario.
In its enormously sweeping powers, Bill 160 grants the Minister of Education and the cabinet, the government of the day, sole authority in a number of areas with a direct effect on the students and the taxpayers of our province. Currently the local communities in Ontario determine their requirements for programs such as junior kindergarten and adult education in direct response to the needs of their areas. This bill gives the ministry total control over education funding, allowing the political party in power control over these or any programs it considers non-essential.
This section of the bill takes financial decision-making for education out of the hands of local representatives of citizens and puts it in the hands of the ministers of education and finance. A further section gives the ability to cut education funding in the province and to prescribe different tax rates for different municipalities, different parts of a municipality and different classes of property, not even to the Minister of Education but to the Minister of Finance, until at least 2004. The local taxpayer, through his or her local representatives, will have no say in the amount or allocation of tax rates.
The impact of this section of the bill on collective bargaining will be felt immediately and over the long term. The local school boards, federations and unions, still responsible for bargaining collective agreements under Bill 160, will be under enormous negotiating stresses as they bargain without any economic authority.
Much has been said in government commercials and press releases about the section of the bill which could ostensibly limit class size in the province. In fact, the bill does not limit class size, as no specific limits on the number of students for which a teacher is responsible are mentioned in the bill. Instead, the bill allows the government of the day to control class size, which could as easily mean increasing class sizes across the province at the total whim of the ministry and cabinet without input from teachers, school boards, parents, students or even the Ontario Legislature.
Over the last 25 years, decreases in class sizes, consideration for differing class sizes for special programs and caps on the number of students for which an individual teacher is responsible have been achieved through the local collective bargaining process, based on statistical and anecdotal evidence and with reference to local needs.
In the last five years, when provincial governments have mandated economic cuts to education, the result has been an erosion of that progress to student learning conditions. Wholesale removal of this area of negotiation from the local collective bargaining process, combined with the total removal of financial autonomy from the local sphere and the refusal of the ministry to indicate specific limits to class sizes in the bill, sets the groundwork for increases in class size and the elimination of special programs. The result is permanent uncertainty for students, parents and teachers.
A third frightening area of the bill is that which allows the minister to designate positions which do not require a qualified teacher to instruct students. Ontario teachers currently use experts from the community in a number of specialty areas to augment their programs. Co-op placements in the community, for example, provide students with exposure to real-world experiences in their areas of interest. But these experts are not expected to serve as the students' teachers. They are not trained in student evaluation or classroom management, nor are they familiar with the essential stages of child or adolescent development, socialization and learning. Qualified teachers are rightly responsible for these areas.
Although the previous minister verbally indicated that it was not his intention to replace teachers with unqualified personnel in the vast majority of circumstances, there are absolutely no limits on any current or future education minister's power to do exactly that. The preamble of the bill suggested areas in which non-teachers may be permitted to teach Ontario's students, including computer education, kindergarten, industrial arts, guidance, library, music, visual arts and physical education. The possibility of expanding upon this already extensive list remains entirely open.
Additionally, this provision of the bill appears to contradict the Harris government's own avowed agenda when it established the College of Teachers, ostensibly created to professionalize the teachers of Ontario. However, the non-teachers whom the minister will have the power to introduce into Ontario classrooms will not be members of the college, subject to the college's standards, qualifications requirements and screening processes.
The government that insisted that a college was necessary to regulate the qualifications and practices of the teachers of Ontario is advocating in this legislation the creation of a two-tiered staffing system in which one tier would not be bound by the regulatory body the ministry itself created. There is no valid pedagogical reason to replace highly trained professional teachers with unqualified instructors. This provision of the bill is purely a cost-saving measure, a way to further remove funding from classrooms.
The government has packaged its attack on teachers' preparation time in the bill as a method of ensuring students spend more time with their teachers. In fact the opposite is the case. If teachers spend more time in classes, as the bill indicates, they will in actuality be teaching additional courses or sections of students. Their teaching load and the number of students for which they are responsible will increase by up to 25%.
The net result will be that a teacher will spend less time on a per capita basis dealing with each student, and have less time outside of the classroom with which to do it. There can be no positive benefits for students in this plan.
Additionally, less preparation time and more classes per teacher will mean fewer teachers in schools. The previous Minister of Education estimated 4,500 fewer teachers; federation estimates come closer to 10,000.
A reduction in preparation time, which is in actuality an increase in teacher-pupil contacts, an increase in teacher marking load, an increase in teacher preparation requirements and an increase in teacher paperwork are another cost-cutting plan and an attack on current collective agreements, disguised as educational reform.
Bill 160 gives the minister the power to make regulations dealing with the length of the school day, school terms, school holidays, instructional days, examination days and professional activity days. The former minister used a number of statistics indicating that lengthening the school day and year, and decreasing examination and professional activity days, would have a positive effect on students' learning conditions, while simultaneously putting teachers' working conditions more in line with those of other jurisdictions.
The government's research and statements are simply wrong. Ontario students do not spend substantially less time in class than students in other provinces or countries. A Canadian Teachers' Federation survey shows that the school year is virtually identical among all provinces -- about 195 days of operation annually. The number of instructional days is 180 to 190 in all provinces. The province of Quebec has fewer instructional days than Ontario. It is true that Chinese students spend 251 days per year in class, but that translates to 858 instructional hours, considerably less than the 925 hours in Ontario. An American review of 36 studies into the effect of increased instructional time on student achievement found few gains in learning by increasing the length of either the school day or the year.
1500
The areas of the bill we have identified so far in this brief are ones which will have a strong negative impact on local democratic decision-making for education and an even stronger negative impact on the learning conditions of our students. There are, however, also a number of areas of the bill which will not have a direct effect on the students of our schools but which directly affect the teachers in our system and the working conditions that they have negotiated with their employers through free collective bargaining over many years.
These include intrusion into teachers' democratic rights of association. Under the new act, the minister may order the board of governors of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, a duly constituted, autonomous body, to make, amend or revoke any of its regulations. Would the government consider such an intrusion into any other private organization in the province? Would its citizens permit it to do so?
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. You have exhausted your time.
Ms Phelan: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: The next group to be called to present is OECTA, the Welland unit.
Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, on a point of order: We have repeatedly heard in these presentations disputes around the total number of teacher positions that would be eliminated because of the changes in prep time. The former minister said 4,200, I believe, others have said 6,000, and the federations have said 10,000. Would it be possible for our research officer, if the parliamentary assistant can't provide the information, to do some investigation with the various groups who have put forward these various numbers for our committee, the teachers' federations and also with the ministry, to find out what the accurate estimate is. Is it 4,000, 6,000, 8,000 or 10,000 fewer teachers?
Mr Smith: I think the point of order Mr Wildman is seeking is to get clarification from the research assistant, either through ourselves or in combination with the ministry. We would be pleased to table a response to that, or try to.
ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION WELLAND UNIT
The Vice-Chair: Please identify yourself.
Mrs Patricia Vernal: Good afternoon. My name is Patricia Vernal. I am an elementary general resource teacher employed by the Welland County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. During my 34 years in teaching, I have been a regular classroom teacher, a special class teacher, a speech-language teacher in itinerant work and a junior kindergarten teacher. Present with me this afternoon is my colleague of many years Mary Pos, who is the local president of the Welland unit of OECTA.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity afforded to us to be able to make this presentation to you this afternoon to address some serious concerns about the Education Quality Improvement Act. For the purpose of this presentation, I will deal with four major areas of concern: regulatory powers, collective bargaining, unqualified personnel and prep and planning time.
What I find most offensive about Bill 160 is the regulatory powers contained therein. Bill 160 sets new precedents in governance. The cabinet is given the authority to write, amend and/or delete regulations governing a wide range of school and classroom conditions not previously assumed by government. The legislation grants the minister new powers to determine critical employment terms and conditions that are currently subject to local collective bargaining. The result will be to remove working and learning conditions from the local negotiations process and leave them to the political dictates of the minister. Bill 160 expands the minister's powers to dictate by regulation a wide range of teaching and learning conditions. A few are class size, planning time, minimum qualifications for non-teachers and the right to strike.
Having been on local negotiating teams for a number of years, we have been able to keep class sizes low through compromise and working together. Bill 160 will allow the cabinet to change these without consultation, debate or discussion. Significant aspects of education can be changed with a single sweep of the pen by cabinet, thus avoiding the checks and balances of legislative debate and preventing meaningful public scrutiny.
The proposed regulatory powers are sweeping in nature and have no content or time limitations. At any point in the future, the cabinet may amend the regulations to give substance to the generalized outlines we see currently before us. At that time, if this act passes in its current form, the cabinet will bypass the normal democratic process and impose its will without reference to the Legislature. I challenge this government to put its intent for all matters into writing so that a healthy debate may ensue on the issues. Any other process makes a mockery of our democratic institutions.
The proposed section 58, which states "such matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable to prevent disruption in the education of pupils," attacks the right to strike. This is an arbitrary misuse of power. As written, the cabinet assumes the authority to make regulations to cover all exigencies, in case something was forgotten, overlooked or unforeseen. In the case of the right to strike, which is a right under a statute, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, the cabinet demands the authority to remove the right to strike under the guise of preventing disruption. Bill 160 allows this government to circumvent parliamentary debate in the denial of the right to strike. The government, under Bill 160, can write a regulation that overrides the act; thus the removal of the right to strike could occur without debate in the House.
Moreover, when section 277 is applied on its own or in combination with section 58, there is an override of any real collective bargaining and right to strike. It states, "In case of conflict, this act and regulations made under it prevail over the provisions of a collective agreement."
Unqualified personnel: Section 170.1(3)(e) empowers the Lieutenant Governor in Council to "make regulations designating positions that are not teaching positions and duties that are not teachers' duties and prescribing the minimum qualifications for a designated position or performing designated duties."
This is a radical change and departure from the current practice, which specifically delineates the necessary professional qualifications of teachers.
Section 170.1(5) reiterates the government's intention of placing unqualified persons in the classroom. It further clarifies the government's intention by stating, "It shall not be presumed that a person is required to be a teacher solely because he or she holds a position not designated under clause 3(e) or performs duties that are not designated under that clause."
This is a catch-all clause to include any situation not envisioned at the time of drafting this act. No other province has such legislation. Essentially, sections 170.1(3)(e) and 170.1(5) will lead to the decertification of the teaching profession with the use in the classrooms of Ontario of individuals unqualified to teach. The use of unqualified instructors could vary from school to school and from class to class, depending on the financial stability of the individual school board. This could mean students in poorer areas would have less access to teachers and a poorer quality of education than students in richer areas.
Poorer school boards would be more likely to employ unqualified persons, resulting in substandard curriculum delivery. Such situations will not enhance fiscal accountability and responsibility. School boards suffering from their own fiscal limitations will have a ready mechanism to address their monetary problems.
As funding is reduced through the centrally controlled allocation model, the use of unqualified instructors would increase, thus accelerating the educational race to the bottom. Such an erosion of quality education is unconscionable.
One must question the motives of this government in moving to decertify the teaching profession. While establishing the College of Teachers to oversee the teaching profession, the government is also promoting the idea of unqualified persons teaching our children.
Ontario governments since the Common School Act of 1843 have required teacher training of all persons assigned the sacred trust and responsible duties of a teacher of children. A variety of 17 acts since then have never wavered from this and have actually increased the qualification requirements to what they are today. This minister wants to take the teaching profession back to before 1843.
Our children deserve the best. Teachers have the necessary training and education in child psychology, adolescent development, educational methodology and curriculum design and implementation, as well as a university degree in their relevant fields. To contemplate employing non-teachers for the care and custody of our most precious resource is an affront to parents and flies in the face of common sense.
The government provides no research to support its position that the use of unqualified persons will lead to an improvement in the quality of education. One wonders whether the government has contemplated these problems or done any research. We know, as does everyone in the public, that the quality of education will not be improved through the use of unqualified instructors. Simply being able to read does not make one an English teacher.
We can only assume that the government's motivation is to save money. At the end of the day we will have fewer teachers and reduced quality, but the system will be less expensive and the government will have their money for the tax cut.
We cannot allow the further erosion of our proud profession. We cannot allow the downloading of responsibilities and duties onto our teachers. We cannot allow our children to suffer because the government agenda is consumed with cutting taxes, whatever the consequences.
1510
All the government's arguments in the area of specialists are deceptively plausible. One only has to examine the schedules A through E of the former regulation 297 of the Education Act to find all the specialists one would ever need for Ontario's classrooms. The government found these to be important enough to enshrine them in regulation 184 under the College of Teachers Act, and yet it now deliberately attempts to ignore them.
As a general resource teacher, I strongly object to the removal of the right of the local bargaining unit to negotiate preparation and planning time allotted to classroom teachers. This is the time that I confer with classroom teachers in my school concerning the special-needs children assigned to their classrooms. It is at this time that we develop the individual pupil plan that will enable the student to learn and remain in a regular classroom with his or her peers. During this time we meet with parents, outside agencies, members of student services departments, including psychologists, behaviour resource teachers, assessment teachers and social workers.
Unassigned time allows me to evaluate the individual pupil plan with the classroom teacher as well as provide my services to that child. This provides for the upgrading and continuing modification of the IPP. In my school, for instance, there's a population of 240 students. I have a caseload of 34 special-needs students. Any reduction in preparation and planning time would seriously hinder the ongoing modification process. I strongly urge you to consider this.
Bill 160 is an extraordinarily disruptive piece of legislation. While it is called the Education Quality Improvement Act, many of its provisions will only achieve exactly the opposite. It is bereft of recommendations that will improve the quality of education in Ontario, and instead appears to be constructed with other objectives in mind. One of those objectives is to centralize control of funding permanently at Queen's Park in order to regulate the most expensive aspects of service delivery: the number of teacher positions and the number of teachers.
Bill. 160 will radically alter existing well-known labour practices. It will create chaos while teacher affiliates and school boards struggle to adjust to new labour policies and legal challenges to restore a balance to employee-employer relations. The act provides for the destabilization of the teaching profession itself in addition to the unsettled teacher affiliate/school board labour relations.
While the government states that this legislation contains reasonable provisions, the reality is that it dramatically shifts the balance of power in collective bargaining in favour of school boards and the provincial government. Further still, the government will have a direct influence in collective agreements either through its cabinet-appointed EIC or via cabinet regulations. As Bill 160 will severely erode basic concepts in collective bargaining, the government should approach these issues with caution lest all existing and future labour relations suffer. Even though we may agree that some of the bill's sections are acceptable, they are sprinkled sparsely among other unacceptable sections. The toolkit of 1996 has resurfaced. The only difference is that the government has reserved the power for itself and did not delegate it to the school boards.
In summary, I'd like to ask for these recommendations to be considered:
That the permanent provisions of Bill 160 maintain the full scope bargaining under the OLRA; that they not make reference to class size; that they not make reference to teaching time and non-teaching time, teaching load or planning and prep time; that it not allow for the redefinition of "teacher," teaching positions or teaching duties; that it not allow the use of non-teachers in positions currently assigned to teachers; that it not allow for the assignment of current teaching duties to non-teachers; that it not allow for regulations which fetter the right to strike any more than under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.
In conclusion, I want to make it perfectly clear that I consider myself a true professional dedicated to the wellbeing of the children entrusted to my care and to quality education for these children. I have taught for 34 years, I have one year left, and I feel this bill is such an intrusion on all of the work that myself and others have put into this profession and into the care and concern and the quality education we provide for these children.
The Chair: I thank you very much. We've gone over the time by a minute. I thought you were concluding, but I don't know that from this position.
Mr Wildman: Could I ask if our researcher could confirm that the Minister of Education and Training has announced that the ministry will provide up to $40 a day to parents who may require child care if there is a disruption in classes for the students? If so, how does the ministry intend to finance this enormous amount of money?
The Chair: Our researcher will take that matter up. We now move to the Taxpayers Coalition of Niagara, Charlie Atkinson, chair. Is Mr Atkinson present? If not, we will go to the next presentation.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION NIAGARA SOUTH DISTRICT
The Chair: The OPSTF, Niagara South district, Dale Ford. Is Mr Ford present? Mr Ford is present. Welcome, Mr Ford. All members have received a written presentation from Mr Ford. Please proceed, sir.
Mr Dale Ford: On behalf of the members of the Niagara South district Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I'm the president of the local, a teacher and an adjunct instructor for Drake University. I'm here today because I believe in parliamentary democracy and because part of the task of our profession is to educate the children and youth of Ontario about its values and process.
Bill 160 is not about greater public control over the school system but about virtual elimination of public control. Last year Ontarians were presented with the infamous omnibus bill trampling on rights and responsibilities of the citizens and municipalities and giving the provincial government extraordinary powers to disregard the rule of law at its whim. Bill 104 established the Education Improvement Commission to oversee the complex job of reducing the number of school boards. The worst, most arbitrary and authoritarian aspects of the omnibus bill and Bill 104 are incorporated into the powers of the EIC.
Bill 160 vests considerable power with respect to transitional matters to the Education Improvement Commission at the expense of local control. The role of democratically elected trustees has been superseded by the unelected commission, with its sweeping mandate, with unknown criteria to review and amend budgets any way it considers appropriate. This commission is not accountable to parents, employees, taxpayers or trustees and its decisions cannot be reviewed by the courts.
Bill 160 raises some very serious concerns about the democratic function of school boards and the free collective bargaining regime and presents a number of issues which seriously affect our membership.
By taking over education funding, by removing it from the local property tax, it's clear the province will control the purse-strings, asking people to have blind faith that these major changes will not hurt classrooms. While Queen's Park would like people to believe that, with the amalgamation of school boards, $1 billion can be cut from education without harming students, this is not true. Our primary concern is, if Queen's Park takes control of educational funding, communities will be helpless to protect students from funding cuts that are clearly being contemplated by the provincial government.
Bill 160 centralizes control and power in the Ministry of Education and Training but decentralizes blame and responsibility. Centralizing control in this manner will enable the provincial government to extract unlimited dollars from the school system. The proposed legislation will severely restrict the scope of bargaining by empowering the provincial government to determine numerous collective bargaining issues through regulation.
Every innovation in education, whether in curriculum, technological change, teaching methods or in social issues like anti-racism or anti-violence programs, all these initiatives started in our classrooms, in our schools, not in the halls or galleries of Queen's Park. The open scope of bargaining has led to improved learning conditions for students and enhanced working conditions for teachers, and much of the proposed legislation is viewed as an attack on teachers and does nothing to meet the goal of the government to have the highest student achievement in Canada.
1520
The government says that there is a relationship between the time teachers spend with students and increased student achievement. The government wants to reduce the number of professional development days and exam days and start the school year earlier. However, Ontario students do not spend substantially less time in class than students in other provinces or countries, and in fact a CTF survey in 1991-92 shows that the school year is virtually identical among all provinces.
The most troublesome aspects of Bill 160 are those which give cabinet the authority to override the present legal requirement that individuals who teach for a living should be certified teachers. The former minister said our students should have access to specialists. What he didn't say was that our students already have access to specialists: specialist teachers in art, music, science, guidance, library, technology and much more. If, as the government insists, it is important for teachers to adhere to rigorous standards when they teach geography or science, why is it assumed that just anyone can teach physical education?
Bill 160 counters completely the drive to a heightened professionalism among teachers by encouraging the use of unqualified persons in the classroom. You cannot improve achievement by lowering standards. Regulations, made without public consultation or notice, should be made which could transform the way education is provided.
Section 81 of Bill 160 contains a provision which empowers cabinet to make regulations governing class size. Every improvement in class size made over the last 20 years was a struggle waged by teachers at the bargaining table, teachers bargaining with reluctant school boards. It was teachers who initiated these improvements, not school boards and not the provincial government. Average class size has risen. This has occurred not because teachers have willingly negotiated larger class sizes, but because funding has been cut. The period which witnessed rising class size included the social contract years, with a permanent downsizing of 4.75% of the teaching complement, and the present, where we have witnessed the government's gouging of hundreds of millions of dollars from an already strained system.
Cabinet will have the power to make regulations determining the minimum required amount of pupil-teacher instructional time and limiting the amount of preparation time. Cuts to preparation time will result in teachers having less time to offer a full range of activities and classroom methods and to respond to the individual needs of teaching. Teaching students effectively requires much more time than being in front of a class. It requires time for working with colleagues, time for consultation with other professionals, time to make plans to address individual student needs as they change daily and sometimes hourly.
Less preparation time will mean fewer teachers in schools. Having fewer teachers in schools will mean a decline in the overall quality of school life and the ability to deliver a varied and comprehensive program. Prep time, like class size, is a hard-won and much-valued component of teachers' working conditions. Any reduction in prep time will seriously jeopardize the quality of education in Ontario.
The government doesn't have a shred of evidence that the system it's about to impose on us will work any better. In fact it may be a lot worse: less democratic, less accountable, more remote and more bureaucratic than the one it replaces.
Queen' Park wants to eliminate community decision-making in education and seize total control. For more than 150 years, communities have worked with provincial governments to provide an accountable and efficient public education system. With the province's assault on democracy, we are experiencing at first hand a lesson in Ontarian civics in 1997. This legislation transfers power from a community institution to centralized provincial bureaucrats. The government's insistence on limited public consultation and debate demonstrates disdain for the citizens of the province.
Cutbacks are the results of decisions made by politicians. We fear that Bill 160 and the latest cuts being imposed by our provincial government are not about debt and deficit. They are about keeping the promise of the Common Sense Revolution. We fear that the proposed legislation is a red herring to take another $600 million to $1 billion out of education to pay for a 30% provincial tax cut. These cuts will seriously reduce support for every child's education, his or her future prosperity, and the future of Ontario.
We are worried that the current pace and sweep of change will create long-term problems in its wake. I understand the province is in a fiscal crisis that you are trying to fix. But I am disturbed by the legislating of a tool that allows unnecessary, broad and invasive powers that could be misused. Rather than giving the people a sense of government in charge, there is widespread anxiety that the government's strategy will take money and jobs out of education.
It is difficult to imagine how teachers are supposed to work with a government that doesn't trust them. If the government doesn't trust professionals with years of combined experience, commitment and caring, then whom do we trust? A government that has two years' experience or an education minister who has spent no time teaching?
Music programs, librarians and junior kindergarten have vanished like smoke all over Ontario, and school children are selling everything but life insurance to raise money for classroom supplies. Can any parent truthfully claim that the Tories have so far created improvement or quality in our schools?
We believe that all the terms and conditions of employment ought to be negotiated and that any changes in the terms and conditions of employment of teachers are to be negotiated as well.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Ford, on behalf of your association.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE/ONTARIO
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Urban Development Institute, Stephen Kaiser, president. Welcome, Mr Kaiser. We have allocated 10 minutes for your presentation. Please proceed.
Mr Stephen Kaiser: Sorry, I understood it was half an hour, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: You're absolutely correct. It is half an hour. I misread it.
Mr Wildman: You're on the minister's list. That's why you got half an hour.
Mr Kaiser: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Stephen Kaiser and I am the president of the Urban Development Institute.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity of providing our thoughts on Bill 160 from the perspective of the land development and home building industry. Let me say from the outset, however, that our interest is focused solely on part IX, division E of the bill, which provides school boards with the authority to impose education development charges on new development, new housing, industry and business here in Ontario. This is an area where UDI and its members have unique expertise and, accordingly, can offer specific input into the workability of the bill. We have submitted to the committee a lengthy paper on this subject, which I understand has been circulated to you, but I will speak to you today only on the most critical issues. Before I do so, however, I would like to describe briefly the role of the Urban Development Institute and the nature of its representation and membership for the benefit of the committee.
The Urban Development Institute/Ontario, or UDI, has acted as the voice of the land development industry in Ontario for 40 years. The institute is a non-profit organization supported by its members, which include firms and individuals who own sizeable holdings of raw land, apartment units and building space. Our membership is engaged in all aspects of the planning and development of communities and the construction of residential, industrial and commercial projects. UDI serves as a forum for knowledge, experience and research on land use planning and development.
Today our members include land developers, builders, land use and environmental planners, investors, financial institutions, engineers, lawyers, surveyors, economists, landscape architects, marketing and research firms and architects. Together they constitute the collective forces guiding the creation and improvement of Ontario's built environment.
The development industry has a fundamental interest in ensuring that new school facilities are provided consistent with the pace of growth. We want schools up and running to serve new neighbourhoods just as quickly as the school boards and the province do. It is in part how we market new development projects.
Moreover, as a result of the 1989 Development Charges Act and more recently with this bill, it appears that the development industry will continue to directly fund the cost of new schools through the contribution of an EDC on new homes and businesses. While the need for new schools in Ontario is no doubt real and significant, estimated to be some $3 billion over the next 25 years, it is critical that the funding mechanism be fair to all stakeholders who are responsible for making contributions. The partnership must be equitable to school boards and the development industry. It is from this perspective that we have reviewed Bill 160.
1530
On May 21, 1997, the Minister of Education and Training announced the government's new student-focused funding model for elementary and secondary education. According to the announcement, a school board's 1998 budget will be based on three components: a foundation grant to provide for students' core education needs, seven special purpose grants to recognize the different circumstances faced by both students and school boards across Ontario, and a pupil accommodation grant to pay for the cost of operating, maintaining, equipping, furnishing and constructing schools.
The government's funding proposal, however, does not provide grants for the acquisition of new school sites. Instead, school boards will be given considerable flexibility under the new system to acquire sites by using undeveloped land within their current portfolio, entering into cooperative arrangements with developers and municipalities for joint and multi-use facilities and seeking long-term leases with the private sector. Boards will also be permitted to impose education development charges, or EDCs, if they have a projected net increase in student population resulting from new development.
Part IX, division E, of Bill 160 is the implementing legislation for the EDC component of the ministry's new funding model and will allow school boards to impose them to cover the cost of school site acquisition. Provincial grants will cover 100% of the cost of bricks and mortar, while the funding of school sites will be left to other means, including the use of education development charges.
Before I offer specific comments on the bill, I would like to remind the committee of UDI's position on the whole issue of development charges. It has been clearly defined for many years but was articulated most recently in our position paper entitled "Development Charges - A Time For Change," which was submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in July 1996 in advance of Bill 98.
In simplest terms, UDI believes that the use of municipal and education development charges has created a group of taxpayers, both residential and commercial-industrial, who are disfranchised because they are unable to participate in the decision-making process regarding the need for certain services. The entire development charge process is undertaken well in advance of building permit withdrawal and certainly before the taxpayers who will ultimately be paying the charges realize that they will be resident in that specific area. In essence, the Development Charges Act is a hidden tax and its impact on Ontario's competitiveness, housing affordability and on the existing and future taxpayer is significant.
At the same time we also reiterated in the same paper our position on the use of development charges to fund education, as follows:
"Education provides a general benefit to society and the general public as a whole should pay for this service. It should not be limited to those who can afford to pay for new housing or establish new businesses. In addition, schools are not given final funding approval until after the mature state population has been achieved, similar to hospitals and long-term care facilities. Finally, the municipality has no control over how funds for school facilities are spent. For these and other fundamental reasons, education should be financed from general tax sources available to municipalities and the province."
Having said this, we realize that EDCs are a key ingredient in the ministry's new funding model and will no doubt be used by growth boards to generate significant land-related revenue for new schools. As such, while we cannot endorse the use of EDCs as a general funding mechanism, we do, however, support the funding of new school construction through provincial grants. If EDCs are to be imposed at all, we support the principle that they be limited to cover the cost of land only. Elimination of the construction cost from the EDC, as proposed under Bill 160, will allow the development industry to focus its EDC bylaw review efforts on the area of business with which we are most familiar: the land component and its associated value.
Now let's turn to the specific provisions of the bill. Bill 160 is modelled in large part on the provisions of Bill 98, which provides municipalities with the continued authority to impose development charges for municipal services. While UDI is concerned that Bill 98 will not actually reduce development charges across Ontario, it did introduce a number of measures to improve accountability and to calculate the charges. Bill 160 benefits from Bill 98 in this regard.
The bill, however, is largely framework-style legislation. It lacks a lot of detail that will need to be articulated by the forthcoming regulations as far as this area that we are discussing this afternoon is concerned.
Section 257.61(1) of the bill, for example, provides a general framework for the calculation of the EDC, but a more detailed methodology has not been included. This is to be prescribed by regulation. Accordingly, a number of my comments are aimed at ensuring that the detail in the regulations mirrors the principles of the bill and provides the necessary direction to ensure that EDCs are properly and fairly calculated in the future.
Our first and most important concern is the determination of land value. Bill 160 proposes to amend the Planning Act by requiring as a condition of draft approval that a developer must offer a school site for sale to a board at a value that does not "exceed the value of the land on the day before the day of the approval of the draft plan of subdivision," or in other words, raw land value. Unfortunately, the full market value of that property would be much higher, reflecting the fact that the land is fully serviced, pre-graded and within a registered plan.
It is critical that developers who are impacted by a school site receive fair market value for their land and those who are not impacted be required to pay the same value. Large neighbourhood plans are usually developed today by landowner groups who look to share the cost or burden of non-productive uses such as schools, even though the actual site may fall on only one landowner's parcel. This owner must receive fair market value for the site or they will end up subsidizing the other developers. The principle of fairness must apply and UDI recommends that the legislation be changed to require the cost of land to be based on the local fair market value of a building-permit-ready, serviced -- to the property line -- and pre-graded site. Our support of this bill is conditional upon that change.
Exemptions for non-residential development: As a vehicle to promote new industrial activity, Bill 160 exempts from EDCs any expansion of an industrial building up to 50% of the gross floor area. We fully support this exemption and would suggest that the definition of "existing industrial building," "gross floor area" and other relevant terms be crafted from the Bill 98 regulations to ensure consistency.
The bill, however, does not provide the boards with the discretion to exempt other forms of non-residential development from the EDC, similar to Bill 98. We recommend that this discretion be specifically included, with the caveat that the residential share not be reciprocally burdened. If a board chooses to impose a non-residential EDC, the split should be based on the residential and non-residential activity projected in each sector over the next five years, unless a different ratio can be negotiated between the school board and the local development community.
1540
In terms of demolition credits, the current act provides an EDC exemption if a dwelling unit is destroyed and construction of a replacement dwelling on the same site commences within two years. Unfortunately, a similar exemption for non-residential development does not exist in the current act, nor has it been included in Bill 160. Most municipal development charge bylaws contain a non-residential demolition credit provision to reflect the notion that there is no additional demand placed on the service brought about by the replacement dwelling. A provision should be included in Bill 160 or permitted by regulation to allow a non-residential EDC credit to be given for the gross floor area demolished. Therefore, the EDC would be paid only on additional floor area. In addition, we suggest that the exemption period for both residential and non-residential development be extended from two to 10 years to provide some flexibility to the developer as to when the replacement building is constructed.
In terms of the non-residential EDC based on gross floor area, the current act requires the calculation of the non-residential EDC on the basis of building permit value. However, many municipalities in the GTA no longer use declared value as the basis for building permit fee calculation, requiring the boards to take on the responsibility of calculating the value for each project as the basis for their EDC. The only available cost index we're aware of is the Toronto Real Estate Board index, which is problematic as it does not include some types of structures, such as farm buildings, sportsplexes, cinemas, restaurants etc. Similar to virtually all municipal development charges, Bill 160 should require that the non-residential EDC be calculated on a gross floor area.
In terms of residential EDC by unit type, the current act seems to suggest that the residential EDC must be calculated on a flat rate approach and Bill 160 is silent on the subject. However, a differentiated EDC which acknowledges the unique occupancies and pupil generation ratios for each unit type, would more closely reflect the cost of providing school services to new residential growth. Bill 160 should stipulate that the residential EDC be differentiated by unit type, such as single-family homes, town homes and apartments, consistent with most municipal development charge bylaws.
In terms of notice requirements, Bill 160 stipulates that the board must make the EDC background study available at least two weeks prior to a public meeting, but there is no minimum statutory time frame between the holding of a public meeting and the passing of the bylaw. Unfortunately, in practice this period is usually quite short, approximately three weeks, and this denies the industry an opportunity to properly review the complex calculations contained in the EDC background study. The EDC background study and the draft bylaw should be made available well in advance of the public meeting and at least 60 days prior to the passage of the bylaw. Ideally, the public should have access to this material at the same time it is submitted to the ministry for their review and approval.
In terms of EDC credits for land, Bill 160 indicates that a board may, with the consent of the minister, give an owner an EDC credit for land which has been provided to the board for pupil accommodation. UDI supports this provision but would suggest that the credit be mandatory rather than permissive. The term "may" should therefore be replaced with the term "shall." In addition, it should be made explicit that full or partial credits are permitted.
In terms of exemptions for small additions and temporary structures, the bill provides for a number of limited statutory exemptions, relating mainly to the addition of one or two units to existing residential dwellings and enlargements to existing residential dwellings. However, certain building types generate limited, if any, pupils and do not trigger a need for service. We recommend that provisions be introduced which exempt all structures less than 100 square feet in size, external parking garages and all temporary structures -- for example, sales trailers, seasonal bubble structures, enclosed weather protection structures -- from the payment of an education development charge.
In terms of site size benchmarks, on September 5, 1997, the expert panel on pupil accommodation filed its report with the minister and, among other things, recommended that site size benchmarks be used by individual school boards when calculating their EDCs. We fully support the use of benchmarks, but it is unclear exactly how they will be factored into the EDC process. Presumably this too will occur by regulations.
Boards across Ontario have, for the most part, relied on outdated standards for determining site sizes, and this has led to excessive land requirements. The regulations must require boards to apply elementary and secondary school site size benchmarks when calculating the amount of land required for new standalone schools and for school additions. This approach is critical to driving efficiencies and cost-effectiveness into the land calculation process, where none existed previously, and should help to limit the excessive or gold-plated standards that are often imposed upon school boards by municipalities.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that our position on the issue of education development charges has been clearly defined for many years. Education provides, as I've said, a benefit to society in general and the general public as a whole should pay for this service. It should be financed from general tax sources available to municipalities and the province and not be limited to those who can afford to pay for new housing or establish new businesses. Municipal and education development charges act as a hidden tax, the combined effect of which undermines Ontario's competitiveness and impedes housing affordability.
As such, while UDI does not believe that EDCs are an appropriate funding mechanism for education, it does support the Ministry of Education and Training's new model for funding school construction which pays for the bricks and mortar through provincial grants. If EDCs are to be imposed, as proposed under Bill 160, UDI supports the principle that they be limited to cover the cost of land only and anticipates that EDC quantums will drop accordingly. Elimination of the construction cost from the EDC will allow the development industry to focus its bylaw review efforts on the business with which we are most familiar: the land component and its associated value.
At this time, many of the details necessary for interpreting the effectiveness of the bill are lacking and have yet to be articulated in the regulations. UDI looks forward to working with the ministry and the committee in fleshing out these details and has submitted this brief with a view to improving the bill and the new EDC regime. In doing so, UDI has drawn from the extensive experience accumulated in negotiating 16 individual EDC bylaws since 1989 and the municipal development charge provisions of bill 98.
The need for new schools in Ontario over the next 25 years is real and significant, but it is critical that the funding mechanism be fair to all stakeholders who are responsible for making contributions. The ministry's new model in Bill 160 is a step in the right direction and UDI looks forward to participating in its refinement and implementation.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. Those are my comments. I'd be happy to try and answer any questions.
The Chair: We have approximately three minutes per caucus and we'll start off with Ms McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: I have a question out of curiosity more than anything else at the outset, Stephen, and then I have a couple of more technical questions.
I was curious about your decision to present in St Catharines rather than in Toronto. You are Toronto-based now, aren't you?
Mr Kaiser: Actually, home is a little way away in Fonthill, but yes, my office is in Toronto. This seemed to work out according to the plan of the day.
Mrs McLeod: In terms of convenience.
Mr Kaiser: Yes.
Mrs McLeod: You're one of only two presenters who actually have a half-hour spot here in St Catharines.
Mr Kaiser: I wasn't aware of that.
Mrs McLeod: There may be some students and teachers who are wondering how the Urban Development Institute got a half-hour here in St Catharines while they only got 10 minutes. I just thought there might have been a particular reason why you weren't presenting in Toronto on the minister's selected half-hour list.
Mr Kaiser: Actually, yesterday I was presenting on another bill, so I was tied up.
1550
Mrs McLeod: Fair enough. A couple of questions; first of all, one I probably should know the answer to. I don't need to ask any questions about the history of UDI on development charges, because we've been over that ground on a number of other occasions with different hats on. But I'm not familiar whether or not there's currently regulation governing the optional reserved school sites in new growth areas. Are there any regulatory conditions on that now other than just the ability of the board to set aside a reserved site?
Mr Kaiser: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Mrs McLeod: So this would be a recommendation for regulatory power in a new area.
Mr Kaiser: Correct.
Mrs McLeod: But it's not covered by the bill, is it? The provision for that kind of regulation is not in the bill?
Mr Kaiser: Well, through the provisions of the change to the Planning Act that I alluded to earlier.
Mrs McLeod: That would be amendments.
Mr Kaiser: Yes.
Mrs McLeod: Right. I have the feeling that if there are any amendments that the government is going to bring back to us in the clause-by-clause, we may see some of these among them. I did notice in the very last paragraph that you emphasized the fact that you did see some positive changes in terms of a very significant limitation on the use of development charges for educational purposes in restricting it to simply the purchase of land, and I would have been surprised if you hadn't noted that.
One of the questions I would then ask you is, the other very significant limitation -- of course, we're dealing with an education omnibus bill and this is probably one of two opportunities that we're going to have to actually talk about the development charges aspect and the school capital provisions. There are very significant limitations being placed in the bill on the capital that will be made available for new schools and on the ability of boards to construct the new schools.
One of those limitations, as I understand, it is a cascading effect, that if you're in a newly amalgamated area, if there's a new growth area in one part of that new area but you've got some surplus school space in an area that's just been amalgamated, even if it's some distance away, students that are closer to the surplus space get bumped into that school and then they free up space in the school that's closer to a new development.
My perception is the end result of that will be a tightening of dollars for school capital from the grant system and that there will be many new developments that don't actually have new schools going in. Is that a concern for urban development, that there actually won't be schools?
Mr Kaiser: I should declare, in answer to your question, Mrs McLeod, that I sat on the panel in regard to pupil accommodation. We bounced that around the room and that was certainly part of the discussion. One of the concerns was the excess capacity, so to speak, within the existing school system, yet we were at the same time building schools in new areas. Some of this logic was to force utilization of the existing capacity within the school system before a new school is actually triggered. Whether that meant combining some schools within the existing system, selling off the excess capacity and then in effect moving that capacity to the new area, that would probably be the direction that would be propelled through this type of model.
Mr Lessard: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to make one point and that is that you're not alone when you say you feel there's too much that's left to the regulations in this bill. We've heard time and again today from parents, from principals, from members of the teacher's federations and many others their concern that there is a lot of the way this bill is going to be implemented left for the regulations and we're not sure what those regulations are going to say. So there are a number of people who share that concern that you have.
I've been looking through your materials and on page 18 I noticed something I wanted to ask you about. When you say that "municipal and education development charges act as a hidden tax, the combined effect of which undermines Ontario's competitiveness," I was wondering, how is it that you feel that development charges would undermine Ontario's competitiveness?
Mr Kaiser: In answer to your question, the education development charges, whether they'd be for the land component only or for the entire school as they were under the previous legislation, are another form of taxation on a house, on a business. That tax is not necessarily perceived by the new home buyer but it's certainly included in the purchase price. It's this myriad of taxes all combined that has the ultimate effect, which answers your question, of actually limiting Ontario's competitiveness. To stretch it, as housing prices get higher, wage demands go in tune on a macro-type level. That's what we're pointing out.
Mr Lessard: What aroused my curiosity is the fact that you wouldn't disagree that we need to provide adequate facilities to provide education for children and that they need to be paid for somehow, and whether that's paid through a development charge or through some general levy on taxpayers in general, the impact on taxpayers in Ontario would still be the same. Rather than having it apply to a specific piece of developable land or across the province generally, your concern is with respect to the level of taxation generally, not with development charges specifically.
Mr Kaiser: I think it's more concerned with the taxation specifically in terms of the tax being actually --
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Kaiser, we have to move on.
Mr Kaiser: Fine.
The Chair: We have limited time. Mr Smith.
Mr Smith: Welcome. It's good to see you, Steve. The one item of your presentation -- and I apologize, I missed a little bit of it. You said your support for the bill is conditional upon issues centring around fair market value, permit-ready serviced sites. Could we just revisit that and perhaps give me an explanation of that position.
Mr Kaiser: Certainly. As the bill is set up now and in my remarks, the person whose land the school site would be taken from, so to speak, would be paid on the basis of one day before draft plan approval. I know you're aware that's very similar to park dedication and how that's figured out. The fact of the matter is that developer who's singled out in a development where the school site would happen to be is at an economic loss for that specific site. The school board will get the site. It will be a fully serviced, ready-to-build site, yet they'll be paid at much lower dollar value than what the site is worth. The best example is, the school board could conceivably sell the site the following day for substantially more money than they actually paid for it the day before. That's the concern: The board should pay what the land is worth.
Mr Smith: I believe it was the Metro Toronto home builders during their presentation in Toronto that raised some concerns with respect to the use of the terminology around net education land costs and the growth-related net education land costs. Do you share a concern with that? Perhaps it's an unfair question in terms of the definition but it was an item that they raised in terms of its application.
Mr Kaiser: If you could elaborate a little more. I don't --
Mr Smith: It applies to the education development charge background study, in particular as it relates to estimates of the education land cost, and the net education land cost and growth-related net education land cost. Has your organization raised --
Mr Kaiser: I haven't been made aware of that concern.
The Chair: Mr Kaiser, thank you very much for your presentation on behalf of the institute.
Mr Kaiser: Thank you. My pleasure.
1600
ROBERT CLARK
The Chair: Our next presentation is Mr Robert Clark.
Mr Robert Clark: Robert Clark, no "e".
The Chair: We have your written presentation. We have 10 minutes. Please proceed.
Mr Clark: Obviously I can't make this in 10 minutes so I will be going through it and skipping over parts. If you're following along you'll be seeing me skipping.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Bob Clark. I am a teacher-librarian at Laura Secord Secondary School, which is in sight of this building. I am in my 29th year as a teacher. I also am a very concerned parent, having an almost 15-year-old daughter at Laura Secord and a 13-year-old daughter in grade 8 at Sheridan Park Public School in St Catharines.
With today's announcement that I, with every other teacher in the province, will be involved in the first province-wide political protest by teachers on Monday, a walkout, a protest that will close every school, it is all the more important that the government listen to those who are presenting at these hearings, unlike what they did when they ignored the hearings on Bill 104. I was upset that I only got 10 minutes at 104 because Ron Johnson, the MPP from Brantford, who was at those hearings, called me a special-interest group, and the groups got longer.
The government has taken great pains to convince the public that drastic change is needed in the public school system, that nothing short of monumental overhaul will suffice. Let us suppose for a minute that is right. Who has been solely responsible for every major change in the education system in Ontario for the last 30 years? The provincial government. Now that same perpetrator wishes to give itself total control of the system, devoid of opposition, devoid of criticism and devoid of common sense, and it will do so by regulation. That means that every important decision made about education, should Bill 160 be passed, will not be made by an elected trustee at a local level as it is now, and given input from the community and from local school boards and teachers, but in some back room at Queen's Park by salaried appointees whose pontificating will be put into practice by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
From the late 1960s and the Hall-Dennis report to the present, the provincial government has had a hand in shaping every important change in education, and when things have gone wrong, they have been quick to point the finger at others. Each decision affecting education has been made by a new Minister of Education eager to make a name for himself throwing together a collection of political appointees, most, if not all, of whom have not seen the inside of a classroom for decades and who make recommendations based on theoretical research based on a very narrow range of descriptors. Then these pearls of wisdom are put into law and thrust into the hands of teachers who have no say in them. Most often, the next government appoints a new education minister who throws everything out the previous government has done and reinvents the educational wheel, this even before the changes have had time to work.
Teachers have often taken the blame for foolish decisions by the provincial government, like the decision to end the teaching of grammar, which was in the Hall-Dennis report; like the decision to go to open-concept classrooms, which were quickly closed off; like the decision of a recent government to destream classrooms, which was called a grievous error, one that the Harris government says it will correct. Teachers opposed these and many other decisions that were quickly buried by successive provincial governments, and what did their opposition get them? It got the teachers derisive comments like, "Teachers are whiners," "Teachers resist change," and "Teachers want to preserve the status quo." Sound familiar? It should. That's what this government has said about teachers' opposition to Bill 160.
Even the government's new baby, the misnamed College of Teachers, has asked the government to scrap key sections of the controversial education bill. In an article by Tom Blackwell of the Canadian Press, he reports: "Sections of Bill 160 that seem to allow non-certified teachers into the classroom seriously undermine the role of the College of Teachers, and could hurt education generally, the college's governing council warned Thursday," and later, "But the college's lawyer noted Thursday that the legislation clearly makes it possible to have non-certified teachers actually instructing classes," something the new education minister, Dave Johnson, has denied. He sent a letter to the College of Teachers to "dispel misconceptions" that Bill 160 would allow unqualified instructors to head classrooms. It was published in the Toronto Star on Saturday.
Is Mr Johnson deliberately misleading the College of Teachers and the public, or hasn't he even read the act? At the end of the speech there are sections of the act which say they definitely can. He went on to say, "It is certainly not the government's intention that Bill 160 would change teacher qualifications or alter the role of the college." This is the most blatantly misleading statement he could have possibly made, but it doesn't address the issue at all. It could replace every teacher in a school, not change their qualifications.
The College of Teachers went on to say that sections of Bill 160 threaten to "deprofessionalize the whole profession of teaching in Ontario." This damning statement comes not from the teachers' unions, but from the government's own creation.
Will uncertified people be able to do my job? Certainly a library technician could do part of my job quite successfully. He or she could stamp out books, run computer programs and process reading materials. But could he or she confer with other teachers, plan research lessons, engage in coordinating collaborative learning assignments, teach senior classes in advanced research techniques for independent research assignments? Could he guide whole classes of grade 10 generals through the integration of print materials -- books -- and electronic media for class projects? I think not.
Alberta's system has been touted as one of the best in Canada, but a study was done of school libraries after teacher-librarians had been removed. Some had some of the best collections of Disney classics in Canada. Others were stocked with real bargains from the neighbourhood supermarket. The researcher said the situation made her want to cry when she saw the results of untrained but well-meaning library replacements.
An even better example is music, and I know this personally. For years, the Lincoln County Board of Education ran an excellent elementary school music program taught by certified teachers. To cut costs, they reassigned the music teachers to the regular classrooms and had musicians from the Niagara Symphony, an excellent orchestra which has recently celebrated its 50th anniversary.
Both of my daughters were in the program under both types of teaching. The music program under the uncertified but highly qualified musician was better than nothing, but it was not nearly as good as what had occurred under certified teachers. Musicians specialize. The musician who was assigned to my eldest daughter's school, very accomplished at his own instrument, knew nothing of the oboe, for which my daughter had signed up. My younger daughter, who signed up in flute and who was assigned to the same musician a couple of years later, whose instrument again was not the flute, by grade 7 knew more about playing the instrument than did the musician.
Music teachers are required, by training, to be able to play and teach a wide range of instruments. A music specialist like a musician, while usually a better musician than a teacher in his or her instrument, is rarely experienced in more than a couple of instruments.
Bill 160 is probably the worst piece of legislation affecting education in the history of this province. The government has been embarrassed by having Gerald Caplan completely disassociate himself from the government's attempt to cherry-pick the recommendations it wanted from his Royal Commission on Learning; embarrassed by David Crombie going to the public about his recommendations not to download social services on the municipalities in exchange for education when the government tried to claim it was just following the recommendations of the Who Does What to Whom commission; and finally found some obedient co-chairs in Ann Vanstone and David Cooke with its Education Improvement Commission.
In a panel discussion on TVO, Ann Vanstone said that they recognized the government would probably cherry-pick their recommendations, and this was all right. What she was admitting was that if the government could choose only the recommendations it wanted, then a lot of the recommendations of her commission were really no good. In fact, were even the ones the government cherry-picked really any good?
What about David Cooke? He's been rather quiet about the issue. Is this the minister of the former NDP government they criticized for almost ruining education?
Harris put down the teachers' unions and school boards for negotiating higher class size, something that Mr Snobelen in the Legislature said was the responsibility of the NDP's social contract. Oops. Did they forget they'd already blamed some group for this? And this was one of the reasons the Harris government gave for having to "save" education from such untrustworthy partners in education. The social contract eliminated 4.75% of the teachers and required the school boards and the teachers to renegotiate class size to reflect the fewer teachers in the classroom. That means it has only one place to go, and that's up.
I implore the members of this committee to put aside party lines for the sake of the students in this province. If you won't scrap 160 altogether, then at least take it off the table for the moment. In the last 30 years, no provincial government has listened to classroom teachers when it has come to reform. Commissions were made up of politicians, educational theorists and just about everybody else except teachers. Would you exclude doctors from a team that is looking at revising medical procedures? Would you have a butcher do brain surgery just because he is good at cutting meat? The educational reforms in Bill 160 make just about as much sense.
I go on and I do have a positive suggestion at the end about the setting up of a permanent commission which would be made up of, among other people, classroom teachers. Those classroom teachers or anybody else who has been out of the classroom for more than five years could not participate, because it's my opinion that once you're out of the classroom for five years, you really don't know what's going on. I wish you'd read the rest of it. I see my time is up.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Clark, for your presentation.
1610
PARENTS AGAINST CORRUPT TEACHING
The Chair: Our next presentation is Parents Against Corrupt Teaching, Jack Huisman. Welcome, Mr Huisman.
Mr Jack Huisman: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this committee today concerning my horrendous experiences with the current Halton Board of Education, their failure in book selection policies and disrespect for parental concerns.
I am Jack Huisman, a parent of eight children. I'm the chair of PACT, Parents Against Corrupt Teaching, a non-sectarian group of 2,300 concerned parents.
PACT is cautiously supportive of Bill 160 in that it promises change and the restoration of parental rights in the education of our children. We encourage the ministry to remove the dictatorial powers of the educrats and the union bosses and then rightfully restore them to us, the parents.
We feel the new parent councils must become more than just advisory. The Milton parent council revealed that until PACT came along, they were involved in things such as running a drug awareness evening and helping with the student yearbook. They must have a greater, independent, direct voice. We continue to urge the ministry to implement parental choice in public schooling.
For two years, PACT has been addressing the issues of book selection policies and parental input, as illustrated by the introduction into the curriculum of the US novel Foxfire, approved by the Halton board in 1994. The official outrageous response of a principal, superintendents, teachers, trustees, board committees and a union president was, "Parents, please park your brains at the schoolhouse door." Their attitude is indicative of everything that is wrong with the current system.
Briefly, Foxfire, a story about 12-, 13- and 14-year-old girls, is a novel replete with profanity, vulgarity, blasphemy, Satanism, animal abuse, negative bias, stereotyping, alcohol and drug abuse, lesbianism, sexual and racial harassment and child pornography. Seventeen trustees rubber-stamped the novel without reading it.
Michael Coren, author and broadcaster: "Illegal and perverse sex, racism and voyeuristic violence infect the work from start to finish. When such material is used gratuitously and simply to titillate it is nothing but pornography."
Nearly 2,300 parents signed petitions and ballots to urge the Halton board to remove the novel from classes of 16- and 17-year-olds. In a credible public opinion poll to nearly half the homes in Halton, 98% of those responding voted to remove the novel from the curriculum. The vicious response from the liberal educrats and media was swift: "Foxfire represents the epitome of excellence in education," while they called me a Nazi bookburner, a white supremacist, uninformed, immature, uneducated, naïve, a crazy, censor-happy parent polluting public opinion.
A poll released just this morning reveals more 12-, 13- and 14-year-old girls getting pregnant by men in their 20s. The educrats' response is sure to be: "Bring on more excellence in education and throw in a few more condoms."
Snobelen took one look in this book and said this book had to go. Earl Manners took one look in this book and said parents had to go.
Terence Young, MPP, Halton Centre: "It is an absolute disgrace that people in a position of trust would foist pornography on our youth. Of all the beautiful literature out there, inspiring and uplifting, it's absolutely degrading to offer our kids the lowest of the low. It is further proof that our school board is dysfunctional and that they are making bad decisions on a regular basis."
Foxfire, a greatly exaggerated account of sexual immorality, fantasies and crimes, glorifies gang life. The Halton board, in support of the novel, states that the novel's overall message promoted social justice, yet the board's own rationale says: "As the novel closes we are left with a sense of the lack of social justice." Foxfire's author insists: "It has no lesbian or homosexual scenes -- in fact no erotic scenes at all. There are no gang rapes...." But the board's own rationale states, "A mentally handicapped dwarf woman is sexually abused by a whole gang."
The response from the educrats? Greame John Barrett, the Halton board's superintendent who recommended this novel to be approved, told the Oakville Beaver: "We cannot let them dictate the standards of the community." A few months later this superintendent was arrested with 19 other men in a police crackdown on illegal sexual activity in the Hamilton Royal Botanical Gardens.
A north Halton trustee currently seeking re-election finds contact with PACT threatening. One Milton trustee confessed that she gives parental correspondence a quick once-over and throws it in the garbage. Despite the fact that Foxfire received national media attention, another Milton trustee fantasizes, "This is not a monstrous issue."
Disrespect for parental input currently runs rampant. They manipulate. They lie. They promote disrespect for parents and government in the classroom while peddling the destructive philosophy of the union bosses that schools should be raising the children, not the parents.
The Halton board arranged for two committees to review the novel. The in-school review committee, in October 1996, and the regional review committee, in April 1997, both stacked with liberal educrats, approved the novel's continued use because students involved in the study of the novel loved it; also because Oates has acquired an international reputation as a writer, receiving literary acclaim. Therefore, in anything she writes now, the regional review committee found that "literary merit is present."
Contrary to the board's guidelines, the Halton board refused to grant parents the right to make presentations to the board to debate the issue even at the urging of Mr Snobelen. Three times a request was made to debate the issue with the trustees and three times they refused. The issue was of such major concern to the trustees that they had their law firm send threatening letters to cease and desist to various members of the community, including CFRB. The truth simply had to be muzzled. Parental rights were violated and the media censored.
The board's policy statement charges teachers to be sensitive to the standards of the community and to individual viewpoints when selecting learning resources. The current Halton board has proven that it is insensitive to the standards of the community, as it not only introduced Foxfire into the schools but also introduced a sadistic Bernardo novel into two Halton school libraries, a book about the remorseless murder of one of our own Halton students. Yes, I'd say this current board is very sensitive, but only to the likes of guys such as Bernardo, while ignoring the tears of the victim's parents and the compassionate support of a loving, caring and supportive community whose standards are anti-Bernardo's and anti-Barrett's.
The Foxfire issue had such a major impact and became such a monstrous issue that Earl Manners, the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, found it necessary to issue a special circular on Foxfire warning members to be vigilant over course interference from parents, to be prepared to fight, to stay calm and to be aware of rash or ill-considered actions. Federation policy maintains the right of teachers to select resources and that the study of pornography should be a fundamental right. Why is it okay for professionals to review school materials but not the child's own parents?
In my opinion, the teachers' unions are in the business of destroying today's generation of kids by eroding the moral foundations upon which this nation was founded. Today it takes $14,800 to educate a student in Metro Toronto, and they want more and more.
The Foxfire mentality, together with all those who support it, has no place in the back-to-basics direction of the Harris government and its public school policies, and PACT urges all MPPs to support the bill.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Your time has elapsed.
We'll proceed to our next presentation, Jeannine Jensen. Is there no one here by that name?
1620
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS' ASSOCIATION, LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
The Chair: We will proceed to the Lincoln county elementary principals, Janet Savard. Good afternoon.
Ms Janet Savard: Good afternoon. I have with me Nancy Hartwell, an executive member of the principals' association. I am their president.
The Lincoln Elementary Principals' Association comprises 82 principals and vice-principals in 56 Lincoln county elementary schools from Grimsby to Niagara-on-the-Lake. Our mission is to provide effective leadership towards the achievement of quality education in Lincoln county. Foremost among our mission statements is the goal that we will work consistently towards the improvement of education for the 858 teaching staff and 15,658 elementary students of Lincoln county.
Mike Harris and the Conservative majority have titled Bill 160 the Education Quality Improvement Act. While Conservative politicians may hope to convince the public that this bill makes way for a better quality of education, Lincoln's school leaders are speaking out against Bill 160.
Members of Lincoln's EPA have received a significant amount of training in how to bring about school improvement and enhance the quality of education in our county. Research in the field of total quality management tells us that employees realize their greatest potential in an atmosphere of positive support when given effective resources. The aggressive agenda of this government, expressed through Bill 160, is counterproductive to those tenets because it causes teachers to believe they are under attack. Its provisions strip teachers of their teaching contracts and their ability to negotiate their working conditions, a basic employee right.
Nancy Hartwell will address a number of concerns that Bill 160 brings under the headings of "Use of Unqualified Personnel," "Class Size," and "Collective Bargaining Rights."
Ms Nancy Hartwell: We have a recommendation about the use of unqualified personnel. Bill 160 provides the opportunity for boards to employ uncertified personnel to instruct students. This action deprofessionalizes and devalues teaching. Unqualified individuals presenting information or demonstrating skills in the classroom cannot be expected to have strategies for managing discipline and for determining students' stages of learning, nor can they properly evaluate and report on student progress.
In Lincoln county, where instrumental music is a voluntary program, trained musicians without teaching certificates are instructing small groups of students during the school day outside of their regular classes. While this has had limited success, we cannot imagine how any one of these instructors could teach a class of 30 students instrumental or vocal music. Yet Bill 160 could allow this to happen. Trained professionals have the necessary skills for motivating reluctant learners and addressing a wide spectrum of learning styles that a typical class of students presents.
No matter how skilled a person might be in their chosen field, one cannot assume that they understand the progression of learning that teachers have been trained to employ when engaged in curriculum development and lesson planning. Research in cognitive development points out ages and stages in child development, and teachers are trained to recognize the readiness of each student to move on to the next stage. Ministry documents provide guidelines and outlines about requirements for student learning that trained teachers develop into courses of study. How is an untrained instructor going to translate ministry guidelines into classroom practice or recognize when a student is ready to advance to a subsequent stage of development?
Assessment and evaluation of students is another fundamental teaching skill and it has been a priority for school administrators and teachers in Lincoln county over the past few years. Perhaps this is the most challenging task that qualified teachers face. Assessment of students cannot be done effectively by unqualified personnel.
The sections of Bill 160 relating to the employment of unqualified personnel must be withdrawn.
We have a recommendation about class size. Bill 160 would place the control over class size in the hands of the government. This raises many unanswered questions. In Lincoln the average class sizes are already above the provincial averages. What would Bill 160 mean to the average elementary class size here? What is class size to be under Bill 160? Would the impact of class size averages mean that low-enrolment classes to address the needs of special students would be a thing of the past? Will the government establish increased class size as a tool for squeezing more teachers out of our schools in order to reduce costs? Details are lacking from this section of the bill. This is not acceptable.
Sections of Bill 160 that would allow government sole control over class size must be withdrawn.
We have a recommendation about the removal of collective bargaining rights. Elementary principals have been leaders in local collective bargaining committees. We are the eyes and ears of education. We know that teachers' working conditions are students' learning conditions and have bargained over the years with our local employers with that foremost in our minds.
Class size, pupil-teacher ratio, bargaining for special-needs students and specialist teachers are the direct results of collective bargaining. The current School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, Bill 100, allows a fair balance of teachers' rights and students' learning conditions. Students have benefited from this stable environment and have not been held at risk by the process as the current government would lead us to believe. This stability will no longer be a reality under Bill 160, which would repeal that act.
The government insists on upsetting the collective bargaining process that has worked well for students, parents and school boards for 22 years. Although teachers have had the right to strike, there have been only seven instances of withdrawal of services in the elementary system province-wide since 1975, when Bill 100 came into being.
The sections of Bill 160 that would deny teachers basic collective bargaining rights must be withdrawn.
Ms Savard: In our capacity as leaders in education, the Lincoln county elementary principals and vice-principals cannot stand by and allow Bill 160 to pass, since we strongly believe it is detrimental to education in this province.
One of the fundamental rights of citizens is the right to good public education. Bill 160 gives this government a rigid centralized control and the power to run low-cost, low-quality schools. This is not the type of education each citizen has a right to expect and indeed deserves. The citizens of Ontario have every right to ask that Bill 160 be withdrawn.
While Bill 160 does nothing to improve the quality of education, it does suggest that centralized power will enhance instruction. How can politicians in Toronto ever adequately determine the needs of our schools here in Niagara? This is viewed by teachers as a hostile piece of legislation in that it would undermine the teaching profession in Ontario.
Bill 160 sets up a situation where government has total control of education funding while eliminating collective bargaining in order to bring about monumental and damaging changes.
Administrators in Lincoln county cannot find one single statement in Bill 160 that will improve the quality of education in this province. We ask the government to withdraw this bill and start with something that is workable. Get input from the practitioners. Allow teachers to work with the government to enhance education in a cooperative environment, not under duress.
Bill 160 must be withdrawn. Our teachers and students deserve no less.
The Chair: Thank you very much. There's only about one minute left. Is there anything you wish to add to conclude your presentation?
Ms Savard: No, there isn't.
The Chair: I thank you very much then.
1630
SUSAN BISTROVICH
The Chair: Our next presentation is by Susan Bistrovich. Was I close?
Mrs Susan Bistrovich: Right on. Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee. My name is Susan Bistrovich and I welcome the opportunity to present my submission to you regarding Bill 160.
Though I am a business unit accountant in the financial division of a major steel company, and though I have many years of parent volunteer experience in the education system at not just the local but at the regional and provincial levels as well, I speak to the bill today solely as a concerned parent of two children in publicly funded secondary education in the region of Niagara. They, and all other students, have an inherent right to a quality education and access to the tools necessary to meet their educational needs. My remarks that follow reflect my written submission, which you will find in the package you have received.
It is my view that the intent of Bill 160 has the potential, through amendments to the Education Act and other related legislation, to provide an equitable educational opportunity for all students in publicly funded education in Ontario, to initiate a major shift in education decision-making and to ensure public financial accountability.
I support the general direction of Bill 160, particularly as it pertains to limited class size and increased instructional time, differentiated staffing and legislation of school councils.
With respect to limited class size and increased instructional time, Bill 160 must be strengthened so that both are addressed in legislation rather than in regulation. This is essential in order to facilitate a consultative process which ensures there is a specific cap for each. Parents are profoundly concerned about the current ability of teacher unions across the province to negotiate increased salaries at the expense of class size and instructional time, so I support provincial authority in these areas.
However, while class size is an important criterion and has been the primary focus of discussion, the composition of the classroom must be given equal weighting in the process: for example, ESL students, challenged learners, disruptive students, to name but a few considerations in the makeup.
I support the notion of differentiated staffing, with the proviso that non-teachers be utilized in very prescribed areas such as guidance, library, computer labs and kindergarten. Specific qualifications should also be required such as library and computer science degrees, early childhood education etc. It seems to me that the recently formed regulatory body, the College of Teachers, is the most appropriate vehicle to develop the criteria for non-teacher certification.
I support the legislating of school councils, but not the notion that they should be advisory. The word "advisory" in conjunction with school councils must be removed from Bill 160. The specific role of these councils should be left to regulation as it pertains to authority and responsibility. In light of the creation of district boards and the determination of fewer trustees, school councils must be assured a greater role in decision-making affecting students and schools in their communities. To this end, regulation should address the inclusion of school council representation on board advisory committees, and the government should await the recommendations of the Education Improvement Commission, established through Bill 104, which directed the EIC to look at strengthened roles for school councils and increased parental involvement in education governance.
I support the shift of financial control of education to the province. When boards mismanage or misdirect education dollars, students are the ones most impacted. They become immediately disadvantaged. It is my view that public funds should be spent effectively and efficiently. Education equity requires financial equity. Therefore, I expect that any savings realized through education reform must be strategically reinvested in education. Such funding should provide opportunities for all schools to have the resources and flexibility they need to meet high provincial standards. I would offer that the formula for the rate of tax should be legislated, not regulated.
I support the intent of Bill 160. However, it must be amended. As it pertains to class size and teacher preparation time, ceilings must be legislated; as it pertains to differentiated staffing, specific qualifications, prescribed areas of instruction are required; as it pertains to school councils, the word "advisory" must be struck from legislation.
In closing, Ontario's education system is undergoing profound change. We would do well to remember that concerns about protecting influence often get in the way of change. To take a quote directly from the 1994 Royal Commission on Learning: "To wait to introduce change until we have unanimity is to wait forever. There is probably no innovation that has benefited mankind that was not originally condemned by experts as impractical, impossible or immoral." In this case, the "innovation" is a more centralized and accountable education system, and the "experts" who would condemn are teacher federations that are most concerned, not about students, but about status quo.
Thank you very much for your time today.
The Chair: We have a little over a minute per caucus left.
Mr Froese: Thank you very much for your presentation. Over the last three days we've heard a lot about the number of issues where there's disagreement, particularly with the collective bargaining areas, and you touched on some of those too. What I'm starting to hear now is, and you said it in your presentation about legislating class size and preparation, "Don't put it in regulation, put it in the bill." Could you give us some indication how you would do that with class size when you've got different things in different communities? How would you legislate class size in the bill? Do you have any comment on that?
Mrs Bistrovich: I may not have phrased it the most appropriate way. The intent is that there would be some kind of formula, process, whatever, but it would have the opportunity for discussion and then be legislated in some fashion rather than addressed in the regulation later.
Mr Bradley: You say in the final part of your presentation, "In this case, the 'innovation' is a more centralized accountable education system, and the 'experts' who would condemn are teacher federations who are most concerned, not about students, but about status quo."
That's a pretty sweeping statement to make about teachers' federations and those who have made presentations across the province. Have I read that correctly, that you believe that the teachers' federations that have made presentations on Bill 160 are concerned about themselves and not about the education system?
Mrs Bistrovich: I think there is also a concern, certainly, about the system, but I would think that their primary purpose in making presentations is to, as they've stated, remove anything related to collective bargaining from the bill. That seems to be the main focus, from what I've heard today from many representatives of various components of the teacher federations, what I'm hearing on the news, what I watched today. That's my own personal view, yes.
Mr Lessard: You've mentioned specifically that ceilings with respect to class size must be legislated. We've heard from previous presenters their fears that perhaps having class size regulated instead of legislated could permit them to actually go up rather than to be limited, so that's a good suggestion. I wonder whether you have some idea of what those ceilings may be and whether you think they should be different for primary, intermediate and senior levels of education.
Mrs Bistrovich: I wouldn't pretend to have all the answers. I think that's something that would have to come out through consultation. My children are in the senior levels of secondary school. I've already experienced a myriad of class sizes over the years that they were being educated. Personally, I found that the smaller class sizes were far superior for my own situations.
Mr Lessard: Would you agree that we need more consultation on class size before passing Bill 160, then?
Mrs Bistrovich: If my understanding is correct, if it were made part of legislation in some way, there would be the opportunity for consultation.
Mr Wildman: That's what this is. This was it.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am, for your presentation here today.
1640
HOLY CROSS SECONDARY SCHOOL
The Chair: Our next presentation is the Holy Cross school and student councils. Welcome. I would ask again that you identify yourselves for the purpose of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation.
Mrs Connie Tracey: Good afternoon. My name is Connie Tracey. I'm taking part in today's public hearings as the chairperson for the Catholic school council for Holy Cross Secondary School. I shall be reiterating views and concerns that have been expressed and unanimously agreed upon by our council. With me are two young ladies. You've already met them. They are voicing the opinions of our student council.
This government promised some months ago that it would create a crisis in education. It has done just that with Bill 160. It has tried to create the impression that Ontarians are dissatisfied with their education system and that schools are turning out less than adequately trained students.
Fact: Polls done in 1996 by Environics and by Vector Research and Development indicate that the majority of Ontarians believe that education reform and reduction of education spending are incompatible, that you cannot do both at the same time; that secondary school reform changes will worsen the system, not improve it; that parents of school-age children have a high level of confidence in the school system, especially the schools in their communities; that not enough money is being spent at all levels -- elementary, secondary and post-secondary; that the quality of teachers is the most important contributing factor in the success of our children in school -- to quote, "Teachers are the system."
The government's comments that our students do not do well if we compare them globally is based on poorly interpreted or manipulated test results. Many of the questions on these tests dealt with material that is not covered in Ontario's curriculum. You cannot test students on information they have never been taught and expect usable results. Evaluation based on the number of correct answers with respect to the material taught results in a very different conclusion.
We would also like to point out that here in Ontario we have public education. Every child, on reaching a certain age, is entitled to go to school. Therefore, random testing will include children who do not speak English, who are developmentally or physically challenged, who suffer abuse, who go to school in the morning with empty stomachs, who are exposed to wonderfully stimulating environments, who are gifted. The entire gamut of students is involved in random testing. Comparing results from random samplings to results from some handpicked groups is hardly comparing apples to apples. So why compare at all? To give the impression of a weakness that does not exist.
Regarding teacher preparation time, we won't attempt to list all the things a teacher does with this time. The list is endless and we're sure you have heard endless lists. We do want to point out, however, that without this time the students would lose many extracurricular activities, and for some, school provides the only occasion for them to be exposed to some of these opportunities. One of the vague rhetorical statements this government continues to make over and over is that less prep time means that teachers will have more time to spend with students. Do the math. The correct statement is that less prep time means teachers will have more students to spend less time with, and this translates into fewer teachers, larger classes, less availability of subject choices and teachers possibly teaching outside of their area of expertise. The fact that some other provinces may have less prep time in their schools is not a legitimate reason to reduce it in our own. Why must we work towards the lowest common denominator?
The idea of non-certified personnel in the classroom is frightening, aside from a resource standpoint. I repeat, this is a public education system. A teacher must adjust and mould whatever curriculum is being presented to make it suitable to the abilities and personality of his or her class. Facts and information are unimportant if they cannot be imparted to the students and the amount of learning evaluated and gauged. A teacher is trained in these aspects, and most teachers continue to take courses during their careers to enhance these abilities.
Finally, the most unconscionable aspect of Bill 160: This democratically elected government would make a mockery of this very democracy by giving the Minister of Education -- no background in education necessary -- the unilateral power to close schools, take over boards, set taxes, cut funding and more, all without having any public process whatsoever. Where is the accountability here? How can this be acceptable to any voter in Ontario?
In conclusion, there is no common sense in this Common Sense Revolution. Bill 160 is a thinly disguised attempt to fund a promised tax cut. Buzzwords like "quality reform" and "rigorous curriculum" do not make it more palatable. Talk about class sizes means nothing without giving us numbers. We can't seem to get a straight story on funding. One day we lose a billion, the next day we gain a billion, and then we find we've already lost $660 million more, and still no funding models. Do not expect us to accept something so vague, so one-sidedly empowering and so potentially damaging from a government that has so little credibility.
I now turn the floor over to two very good examples of our education system.
Ms Coholan: My name is Erin Coholan and I'm the student council president at Holy Cross.
Bill 160 will directly affect students like myself throughout the province. The future lies in the hands of what we, the adults of tomorrow, learn today. As a student, it scares me not knowing in what direction education is headed. We have asked the question, "What is going on with Bill 160?" and received no direct answers. The bill is unspecific and the funding model is necessary to assess the government's proposed action. Figures must be stated, such as the number of students in capped classes. The evaluation of professionals who are not teachers and the courses taught by non-teachers should be stated specifically and not termed "notwithstanding."
In the report The Road Ahead, recommendation 2.7 states that any savings realized through the restructuring of school boards should be reinvested in the education system. As students, we feel this recommendation should be seen through in order to ensure quality education.
Another major concern is that too much power is given to the government. Changes have come about too quickly and we are afraid that all specifics are not being defined. A great deal of effort, planning and time in legislation are necessary when deciding the future of today's youth.
We feel that people directly involved with education should have some say in education improvement. They are the ones we see after school on the football field, on the stage, the ones who are available to us for extra help and the ones who show us they care every day. As students, we do not have this personal relationship with members of Parliament. An enabling bill allows for the possibility of a worst-case scenario. Education would solely be in the hands of the government and more specifically the cabinet. This would require total trust in the government and its successors, who are not offering any guarantee.
As students, we are unable to vote. If we can trust the government, then why is collective bargaining being eliminated? This is not democracy. What is the government afraid of? We believe teachers would support the best-case scenario. It is clear that teachers, the government and students all have a common goal, and that is called quality education. However, these groups have different views on how to get there, but I guess the basic principles of cooperation we learned in kindergarten get lost in politics.
The Chair: There's one minute left.
Ms Maggio: With cooperation comes collaboration, which is key to ensuring the resolution of this debate over Bill 160. Changes need to be made. They must if there is any hope to avoid this teachers' strike.
The international testing presented by our Conservative government may prove that some advancement in curriculum should be made. However, even that is questionable. But let us not believe the government's statement that our system is broken. If we the public were to evaluate these international tests in the manner the government is suggesting, then an international curriculum would be necessary to rate countries fairly, which at this point is extremely unrealistic.
We also realize that decreasing the deficit is important and the main agenda of this government, and that available cuts are justifiable as long -- and we need to stress this point; it must be clearly understood -- as cuts do not interfere with the quality of education we are currently receiving.
Students are the future of Ontario and we deserve the best possible education to ensure the success of our future, thus ensuring the future success of this province, which is what both the teachers and the government want, is it not?
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation here this afternoon.
That concludes our business here today. We are adjourning to the city of Chatham at 10 tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1650.