ONTARIO FEDERATION OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS
BOARD OF TRADE OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
FEDERATION OF CATHOLIC PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS OF ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Wednesday 24 April 1996
Education Quality and Accountability Office Act, 1995, Bill 30, Mr Snobelen / Loi de
1995 sur l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation, projet de loi 30, M. Snobelen
Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995, Bill 31, Mr Snobelen / Loi de 1995
sur l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario, projet de loi 31, M. Snobelen
Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations
Ann Smith, president
Norma McGuire, past president
Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto
Dave Vincent, member, education committee
Shelagh O'Connor, senior policy analyst
Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario
Mary Ann Cuderman, president
Patrick Smith, executive director
Aboriginal Education Council
Murray Maracle, member, executive committee
Tim Thompson, Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres
Mindy Maracle, student
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Gerretsen, John
(Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Agostino, Dominic (Hamilton East / -Est L)
*Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC)
Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)
Johns, Helen (Huron PC)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)
Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC)
*Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)
Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)
*Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr Gerretsen
Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC) for Mrs Johns
Skarica, Toni (Wentworth North / -Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Boyd, Marion (London Centre / -Centre ND) for Mr Laughren
Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC) for Mr Preston
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Doug Arnott
Staff / Personnel:
Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1006 in room 151.
EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'OFFICE DE LA QUALITÉ ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION
Bill 30, An Act to establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office and to amend the Education Act with respect to the Assessment of Academic Achievement / Projet de loi 30, Loi créant l'Office de la qualité et de la responsabilité en éducation et modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'évaluation du rendement scolaire.
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO
Bill 31, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi créant l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.
The Acting Chair (Mr Michael Gravelle): Good morning. I believe we have a quorum, so we're going to begin today. Welcome to the last day of public hearings into Bill 30 and Bill 31.
My name is Michael Gravelle and I'm the acting Chair for our hearings today. Before we get started, I just want to remind the committee members that Friday, April 26, is the last day to get amendments to the clerk's office for clause-by-clause discussion next week. As long as they're received in the clerk's office, Lynn Mellor's office, by Friday, that will be acceptable.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Just in that regard, does the clerk know what the situation is with leg counsel? Will they have time, if they receive amendments today, to get them done by that time?
Clerk Pro Tem (Mr Doug Arnott): I don't know their situation. You would have to contact them.
Mr Wildman: We will be. We hope to have the amendments ready. We'll certainly be able to notify the committee which clauses we wish to amend, but if there's a holdup with leg counsel -- I'm not being critical of them; they may have other things to do -- we're not sure we'll have the final wording of the amendments. We certainly hope to.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): The date you suggested, that's for anybody?
The Acting Chair: Any member of the committee may present amendments.
Mr Patten: No, the deadline that you mentioned, it's for public input I'm talking about.
The Acting Chair: I believe it's for amendments to be put forward to the clerk's office.
Mr Wildman: The subcommittee had said that we hoped to have the amendments by that date. I'm just saying we're going to try to do that, but if there's a problem with legislative counsel, if they've got a lot of work backed up, we may not have the final wording of all the amendments. I hope that's not a problem for the committee.
The Acting Chair: Can we check and get clarification on that?
Clerk Pro Tem: Yes.
The Acting Chair: Okay, we'll get clarification on that, hopefully before the finish of our hearings today. Also, our research officer, Mr Glenn, has some information for the committee members and we may as well do that right now.
Mr Ted Glenn: Please find at your place this morning a response to a request for information from Mr Patten regarding the access to information and protection of privacy in self-regulated bodies in Ontario. If there are any questions, you can contact me.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS
The Acting Chair: I would like to begin the proceedings by calling the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, if they could come forward. Good morning and thank you for joining us today. You'll have 30 minutes for your presentation which you can use in whatever manner you wish. Whatever time is left over after your oral presentation will be divided equally among the three parties. We will ask you to introduce yourselves and proceed.
Mrs Ann Smith: My name is Ann Smith. I am president of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. Norma McGuire is past president of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, and Debbie Brick is a vice-president. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to speak to you this morning.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations has been an effective voice for parents in the province of Ontario since 1916. We represent more than 20,000 paid members from all parts of the province. Coming from all walks of life, our diverse membership allows us a unique perspective on many issues and a broader understanding of the challenges facing the education system today. Our unity comes from our commitment to advocating for young people to achieve our vision of the best for each student.
OFHSA's strength is in our structure of local associations, councils, regional boards and provincial federation communicating and working together.
We believe parents/guardians are willing and active partners with those delivering education programs and services. Research has indicated that parental involvement in a child's education is a major contributor to student success. The experience of OFHSA members has been that when parental involvement is encouraged, community support of the school is very high. Positive experiences, when shared, strengthen the bonds between home and the education community.
A visual depiction of our organization shows a closed triangle, with teachers and parents forming the base corners and the student representing the apex. Joining these points are arrows in each direction. On the back of our policy document, you will see our diagram showing this. This interrelationship is the focus of our energies. When the relationship is one where each party is accorded respect and their suggestions are welcomed and valued, everyone benefits.
When parents are welcomed into the decision-making process, the credibility of school staff, administration and government is enhanced.
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations supports the formation of the Ontario College of Teachers. In 1978, the members of the OFHSA passed, and have since reaffirmed, a policy resolution asking that the responsibility for setting and maintaining teachers' standards be turned over to a professional body.
In studying the final report, The Privilege of Professionalism, and the legislation which is before you, we have identified the areas on which we want to comment: public representation on the governing council, ongoing professional learning for teachers, pre-service education and accountability to the public. We will not comment on fees, committees or general matters of governance, as we believe these are matters to be determined by the parties most affected.
Public representation on the governing council. We agree with the proposal that 17 members will be elected to represent the teachers. The fee-paying members of the college should have the majority representation on the governing council.
We would encourage a strong representation of parents in the 14 appointed members. As an organization with an 80-year history of partnership with educators, OFHSA should have a member sitting on the governing council.
We believe that parents who sit on the governing council representing public interest should be supported by a large provincial grass-roots organization. Such an organization should have the means to communicate with and gather input from parents across the province. They must be accountable to the parents on whose behalf they speak. Representation from OFHSA, as well as the other two provincial parent organizations -- the Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario and Fédération des associations de parents francophones de l'Ontario -- would be most appropriate.
We see the makeup of 17 elected members to 14 appointed public representatives as a fair and equitable balance. Just as we believe that parents must have the majority on school councils, teachers should have the majority on the Ontario College of Teachers.
Ongoing professional learning for teachers: The members of OFHSA have long demonstrated a concern for and a commitment to ongoing professional development. OFHSA policy since 1971 states that, "We support the objectives and principle of upgrading teachers' qualifications." In 1981, OFHSA took the position "that boards of education provide professional development workshops re the strategies for teaching reading or similar courses for all practising teachers."
We believe that the majority of teachers have a love of learning and a commitment to professional development. We believe that they desire to obtain any skills or knowledge of strategies which will help them better serve their students.
We support the principles for a professional learning framework, as listed in The Privilege of Professionalism, and assume that the college, once established, will accept these as the basis for further work. The report states:
"A provincial framework will establish a context within which the various constituents of the education system -- school boards, independent schools, colleges, universities and professional organizations -- may establish programs and strategies of professional learning."
Members of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations support the working together of these constituents.
We believe that the local boards of education and their schools should be the majority delivery system for professional learning programs. There is already established in our boards quality programming delivered with the context of meeting the needs of their local student community.
Regarding evaluation of teachers, an OFHSA policy from 1978 states, "That a timely, effective and standard manner of evaluating teachers' teaching abilities be developed considering the following: representatives of all affected parties (students, parents, teachers and board) be included in the process; standard evaluation criteria be applied province-wide; mandatory training in the use of evaluative techniques be given to all those involved."
We recognize the need for maintaining records of professional development of teachers and for ensuring that such development is taking place. However, we have a concern that additional bureaucratic layers not create unnecessary duplication. We believe that administrative personnel in local boards, who have responsibility for direct supervision of teachers, are best qualified to oversee these issues. Board reports might then be made to the college.
Pre-service education: A 1971 OFHSA policy states, "That the Ministry of Education and Training and the Ontario Teachers' Federation maintain some degree of control and supervision of the degree courses for teachers to ensure that such courses be specifically designed to provide for the training requirements of teachers, both academically and in the terms of classroom experience."
This is just one of many OFHSA policies addressing pre-service education. We support the transfer of authority for accredited pre-service education to the college and the statement in The Privilege of Professionalism that "standards of practice for pre-service education must be developed in consultation with a wide range of groups in the educational community."
Pre-service programs delivered by our faculties of education must provide our student teachers with the necessary skills and strategies to meet the needs of the students they will face in the classroom of today.
Accountability of the college to the public: Bill 31 states, "Meetings of the governing council should take place four times a year and should be open both to the members and to the public."
We support the open access. At the same time, we respect the need to close meetings under certain circumstances. Members of the public who have some testimony which can assist in deliberations should be able to attend disciplinary and statutory committee hearings.
OFHSA's members welcome the required annual reporting by the college to the minister, to the public and to the Legislature. This is a clear response to issues of public accountability.
In summary, we want to stress our commitment to be active partners in the education of our students. We welcome the opportunity to share the experience we have gained in 80 years of representing the concerns of parents. The members of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations look forward to a more direct participation in the Ontario College of Teachers. Thank you for the opportunity to present at these hearings.
Mr Patten: Thank you for your presentation this morning. In the third sentence you said, "We represent more than 20,000 paid members."
Mrs Smith: Yes.
Mr Patten: Is that right?
Mrs Smith: Yes, that's correct.
Mrs Norma McGuire: Would you like an explanation of what we mean by "paid members"?
Mr Patten: Yes.
Mrs McGuire: Within our federation we have a membership fee that we charge to members so that we can run a provincial office.
Mr Patten: Oh, I see. Okay.
Mrs McGuire: These are people who have a commitment to education and to children and are willing to pay to belong to an organization that will represent them. We service all the children in the school and all the parents in the school, but there are people who are willing to be members and those are the people on whose behalf we speak.
1020
Mr Patten: Okay, fine. You didn't comment on the proportion of representation on the council in terms of teachers, which is the ongoing debate, as you may have gathered if you've followed any other representations here or anything in the press.
Many teacher federations are saying that the representation of 17 members isn't really classroom teachers and therefore they challenge the concept of this being a self-regulatory body as such, that it's such a tight, tight balance, if one or two representatives were ill and couldn't attend a meeting, it would really throw off the representation in terms of them having a majority. While it wasn't part of your presentation, would you care to comment on that balance?
Mrs Smith: We have discussed this at great length actually. We still feel that the teachers should have a majority in speaking, and our comment at one time was that 17 would be the teachers and then the supervisory would have three, which would make it 20. That was pie in the sky, but we felt that rather than take away, we would add on.
Mr Wildman: I thank you for your presentation. I noticed that in response to my colleague Mr Patten, you've indicated that you think the 17 should be classroom teachers. The supervisory officials who have appeared before us have agreed that they are teachers but not classroom teachers. It's pretty obvious, but they've been asked the question and they've said that. Obviously, they play a very important role in evaluating teachers in ongoing education of teachers and training of teachers. Why do you think they should not be included in the 17, the teachers' component of the board of governors?
Mrs McGuire: We feel that 17 can be divided, but we perhaps think there should be more people than 17 representing the professionals.
Mr Wildman: You've also asked that your organization, recognizing the work you've done for many years on behalf of parents and students, should be represented on the board as part of the public component. Almost every non-teaching group that has appeared before us has said that it should be represented on the board. Obviously there is a limit to how many people we can put on a board. Have you had discussions with the ministry staff about your wish to be represented and have you had any indication from them as to how they are going to choose the people who will be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council?
Mrs Smith: My understanding was that the Ontario Parent Council was recommending the three parent groups to represent the parent groups of Ontario.
Mr Wildman: That's correct. I just wondered if you had got a response from the ministry.
Mrs Smith: Not as yet, no. We represent our members and we are accountable to our members, so when we speak, we speak for 20,000 members across Ontario, and I feel that is a very good basis to have representation on the council, and that's why I would recommend that we be there.
Mr Wildman: I wasn't disputing that you should be; I was just wondering if you'd got a response from the ministry on that.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you for coming. I know very much about your work. One of the issues for us is that there seems to have been a concentration for people in talking about this bill on the disciplinary aspect of it. I noticed that you are really emphasizing the professional development aspect of it -- and I know that's always been a real concern of yours -- in the sections of your brief on both pre-service and ongoing professional learning. I know this is something you have been concerned about for many years.
You've been concerned about the apparent lack of control the Ministry of Education has over the kinds of pre-service courses university faculties of education offer. Certainly when I was Minister of Education we talked about the need for a course on special education for every teacher, and a course on issues such as gender, race, social justice and so on. I gather from the enthusiasm with which you look at this act that you think the way this can be achieved would be through this kind of professional standard situation that's suggested in the act as part of the college's function.
Mrs Smith: That's correct, yes.
Mrs Boyd: I think you're right, because certainly the College of Physicians and Surgeons has a good deal of influence over the medical schools. They too reside in universities, and although universities are autonomous, there tends to be a mindfulness of what the college is saying around that kind of training. We see, for example, the college-based committee that's looking at community involvement for learning physicians as being an example of how a college can influence the actual training that happens. I gather this is really a culmination of dreams, in a way, for your federation.
Mrs Smith: Yes, for many years.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have one or two brief questions. A lot of the testimony we've heard in these hearings has involved the governing council and the makeup of it. You seem to be in favour of the 17 teachers and the 14 nominated people who would be on it from the public.
The implementation committee, with reference to 14 members from the public, has indicated as follows: "The committee recommends the appointment of three parents, nominated by the Ontario Parent Council, representing the public, the separate and the French-language systems." That would mean the Ontario Parent Council would nominate the three people and it would seem you would not be involved in that process. Perhaps you could comment on that recommendation; or if you would be involved, I'd be interested in knowing.
Mrs Smith: My understanding is that the three parent groups that have a permanent seat on the Ontario Parent Council represent the parent groups of Ontario; the other individuals are not representing a particular group. My ideal would be one from each of these parent groups, which would include OFHSA.
Mr Skarica: Is it your understanding then, the way it's set up right now, that you would have input into nominating persons on that board?
Mrs Smith: Not necessarily, but it would be our wish that we would, yes.
Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): Thank you very much for taking the time to come today and giving us your insight. Have you had an opportunity to examine the Education Quality and Accountability Office at all and are there any comments or advice you might wish to offer to us on that basis? If you haven't had the opportunity to do that, could you perhaps give us some comments about the concerns you're hearing from parents about the assessment and reporting of student achievement, student learning?
Mrs McGuire: We have one or two people who are not with us today sitting on that committee. They report to us and give us as much information as they can. At this point, I'm sorry. I've had the information; I didn't come prepared to discuss that, unfortunately. It didn't enter my mind, so I didn't think about it, but we do have people sitting on the committee who are looking at that.
Mrs Ecker: At that particular office, the proposals for that?
Mrs McGuire: Yes.
Mrs Ecker: Do you have any advice or comments based on some of the concerns you've heard from parents about how their students are learning, how they're being assessed, any advice based on that experience that you might wish to offer? I don't want to put you on the spot; I'm sorry if I am.
Mrs Smith: Actually, we've had many concerns at different times, but as far as having anything that I would feel comfortable speaking about at this time is concerned, I would prefer not to.
Mrs Ecker: One of the things you've talked about in your presentation is the public representation on the governing council. Would you support the inclusion of public members, making sure there's adequate and appropriate representation of the public on some of the other committees -- the investigation, the discipline committee -- of the college?
Mrs Smith: Yes, very much so.
1030
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Mrs McGuire: May I make one comment, please?
The Acting Chair: Certainly.
Mrs McGuire: We have stated policies that have been on our books for many years. They may seem as though we have done nothing to update them, but they were good. Our predecessors set up good policies for us and we keep saying, "Yes, we still believe in these." This is why some of the dates are old, but we have been in this business and have been wanting something to happen since the 1970s and we've stuck in there.
Mr Skarica: It's like the Bible.
Interjection: Thank you for your persistence.
Mrs Boyd: I'd like to second that, because having been the recipient of many communications from you and knowing how vigorous your meetings can be, you certainly have reviewed all of these issues again and again. I think you're right: It is the quality of the original proposals that has certainly stood the test of time, and that should speak to us.
That's very important in the deliberations around this, that some of the things you've been asking for for well over 20 years are things that the royal commission echoed and that we're seeing in the report from the implementation committee. I think it should give us some comfort.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's much appreciated.
BOARD OF TRADE OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
The Acting Chair: If we could call forward the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto education committee, good morning and welcome to the committee. Introduce yourselves if you would and feel free to proceed.
Mr Dave Vincent: My name is Dave Vincent. I'm the manager of training for the Royal Bank in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area and I'm representing the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. My colleague with me today is Shelagh O'Connor, who is the senior policy analyst at the board of trade.
I will just mention as well that the presentation I'm going through will not follow word for word the presentation you have in front of you. I'm changing that a little bit and I don't want to get you caught about three quarters of the way through the first page wondering exactly what presentation I'm making and whether I'm in the right room or not.
I want to describe very briefly the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto is Canada's largest and most successful community chamber of commerce and represents 10,000 members. It's funded exclusively by members and we've represented the views of Toronto area business to governments at all levels for more than 150 years.
The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto expresses its strong support for Bill 31. We are pleased to be engaged in this healthy and extremely positive debate about a key initiative which has the underlying potential to substantially shape our future and the future of the children in Ontario going forward.
The fact that this bill has all-party support in principle really signifies the positive implications, the universal appeal and the strength of convictions this idea about creating a College of Teachers in our society has. While this debate will focus on many different stakeholders in our society, one of the real outcomes of this dialogue is that we are truly joining together in the best interests of the children in Ontario. The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto has a positive and meaningful role in this dialogue.
The issue of a College of Teachers in Ontario has been a focus of ongoing discussion in various venues for a number of years. The board also has had a long history of supporting increased professionalism among Ontario's teachers. In 1988 the board favourably reviewed the recommendations of the reports Teacher Education in Ontario and Final Report of the Teacher Education Review Steering Committee. This latter report recommended the formation of a professional body for teachers in Ontario. At that time, the board supported an arm's-length relationship with the ministry and funding of the licensing body by teachers as opposed to government funding.
We have monitored through the education committee at the board the progress of the Ontario College of Teachers Implementation Committee and reviewed its report, The Privilege of Professionalism. While supporting the general thrust of the bill, the board recommends changes to the structure of the council and the college's accreditation standards for professional and ongoing training which would lead to improvements.
In summary, the board will address three points through this presentation: first, increasing council size to provide expanded lay representation; second, demonstrating the proposition that classroom teachers should constitute a majority of the college's governing council is indefensible; and thirdly, discussing how the quality of education in Ontario is not competitive in a global marketplace.
The issues of the number of lay representatives relative to the entire council and having a majority of classroom teachers on the college's governing council are very much intertwined. The composition of the council's representation will be one of the enduring variables in the college's future activities. Therefore, the structure must be sound.
The considerable debate related to this structure is centred around the following key question: Who is the governing council ultimately responsible to, the public the college serves or the college's membership? While this question may seem rhetorical in nature, we must ultimately make choices about where the best interests are going to be served.
It is a meaningful exercise to review some of the evolution of professional self-government, as the past and present does set the tone and expectations of what society expects from professional self-government. The issue of self-regulation has received significant attention in many different forums as a number of professions have achieved self-government. As business people, consumers and parents, we have definitive views that we should have the opportunity to have active and substantial participation at the council level. However, we have to separate ourselves from the emotions of the issues and examine the premise and principles of self-government to ensure we are honouring the spirit and intent of this type of legislation.
The seminal work in Ontario is the 1968 McRuer report, which observed the following about self-government:
"The traditional justification for giving powers of self-regulation to any body is that the members of the body are best qualified to ensure that proper standards of competence and ethics are set and maintained. There is a clear public interest in the creation and observance of such standards. This public interest may have been well-served by the respective bodies which have brought to their task an awareness of their responsibility to the public they serve, but there is a real risk that the power may be exercised in the interests of the profession or occupation rather than in that of the public. This risk requires adequate safeguards to ensure that injury to the public interest does not arise."
The McRuer report clearly identifies the key role the public has in any effort to move forward towards self-government.
Carrying the argument and research further on public participation in self-governing bodies is the report from the task force struck by the Pew Health Professions Commission in the United States in December 1995. While the report is American in origin and focuses on health care professions, the principles and recommendations contained in the report are easily transferrable to many regulators in Canada.
The task force commented that many critics of self-regulated professions argue that self-interest and conflict of interest are inherent in self-regulation. To address that concern, public membership on regulatory boards is increasing rapidly. The rationale for inclusion of public members is that they're supposed to challenge and complement board decision-making from a critical, non-professional perspective. Public representation should reflect the particular jurisdiction's urban, rural, ethnic and cultural communities.
The task force referred to Ontario's own Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council as an example of an innovative board in which public participation is key. The task force found that the HPRAC had addressed the twin goals of increased effectiveness through oversight and accountability through public participation.
These two separate reports share a common thread. They clearly stipulate that the public needs to have a significant and active presence in self-governing bodies. While the McRuer report outlines the principles, the Pew report also reflects the social norms that are evident.
The general community wants to be involved in the self-governing process. More specifically, the people of Ontario outside the teaching profession want to be part of the education partnership at the governing council level. The legislation in question, Bill 31, outlines a governing council comprised of 17 elected members from the profession as well as 14 public members. Obviously, the profession is well-represented.
In principle, we recognize the governing council of the college must represent the range of views and interests that should be taken into account in the council's deliberations. The council should represent the diversity of the profession in Ontario. However, the board of trade believes that the views of professionals should be balanced by an adequate representation of lay members of the council.
The board of trade recommends that Bill 31 be amended to increase lay representation on the council by four lay members. This maintains a majority of professionals while giving a clearer voice to consumers or stakeholders in Ontario's educational system. Our recommendation reflects the community's desire to be actively involved in the direction and the focus of education. The principles of self-government clearly support this recommendation. The Pew report clearly indicates the societal expectation of active involvement. The additional four lay members would come from each of the provincial, public, separate and French systems.
1040
Given this background, the board cannot accept the position that has been attributed to teachers' federations and taken by some commentators on the draft legislation, that classroom teachers should constitute a majority of the council, for example, excluding other members of the college as equivalent professionals.
The board cannot identify a precedent or defensible rationale for such a stance. While we have not completed an exhaustive review, members of the board of trade have identified numerous members of governing bodies of other regulated professions in Ontario who would fail an equivalently narrow definition of professional activity.
This view denies the professional status of academics, researchers and supervisory officials who are members of the college. It also violates the precedents established by many of Ontario's regulated professions. Indeed, the members of the governing bodies of some senior professions -- accounting and engineering are two examples -- are drawn largely from supervisory, academic or research positions.
These individuals are always counted as full professionals in the election and/or appointment processes of their governing councils and in the statistics describing the proportion of professionals on those bodies. In other words, eliminating those who work in supervisory, professional preparation or research roles would denude the governing councils of many Ontario professions.
Finally, the quality of education in Ontario is not competitive in the international marketplace according to recent research. The board recognizes and acknowledges that much good work is being done in Ontario's education system. We all want to believe that our education system is the best in Canada -- in fact, the world. We have a lot at stake in this system. It is the system many of us have children attending or we have participated in or are currently participating in as school trustees, teachers or taxpayers. With the large financial commitment we make, we have this desire to be proud. However, in spite of this good work, the board is critical of the system's performance as measured by the achievements of Ontario's students in international programs.
We no longer compete in a local marketplace only. Our students are competing in a global marketplace; therefore, they need a system which addresses that particular need. An international study published by OECD in 1992 reviewed the educational expenditures among a group of developed countries as well as measuring academic achievement. The findings were revealing. Canada ranked number 3 in the group as measured by expenditures on education, providing approximately 20% more support to education than the average OECD country.
Unfortunately, the academic achievement of Ontario students, which was separated out for this study, was no better than average. The simple truth is Ontario students, who are educated in one of the world's most expensive school systems, score no better than the middle of the range established by students from other developed countries. This result is not acceptable for Ontario's youth. They deserve better. These students represent our future; therefore, this is not acceptable for our economy. International competitiveness will be the ultimate test of Ontario's success.
The board of trade's views are clear: The effectiveness of the education system, as measured by student outcomes, must improve.
Obviously, an improvement in these crucial student outcomes will require attention to many aspects of the education system. The board has recognized the value of the investment currently being made to establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office. The office is working toward a means of measuring progress in the Ontario system. However, the College of Teachers, with its responsibility to accredit both professional and ongoing education programs, has a significant role to play in achieving the improvements we all seek.
Based on the foregoing, the board strongly recommends that the act or the regulations should require the college to evaluate the effectiveness of professional and ongoing education programs. We must have a sound foundation which we move forward on. As we mentioned earlier, our competitive advantage and getting the most value out of our education system is key.
This mandate should include an expectation to identify the characteristics of effective teacher education programs. The results of this work should inform the development of the criteria to be used in the college's accreditation processes for both the preparation of new teachers and the ongoing development of classroom teachers and supervisory staff.
Finally, some commentators have challenged the act, claiming that the college will require mandatory recertification of teachers. Our reading of Bill 31 and The Privilege of Professionalism has not identified such a program. Indeed, the board would not support mandatory training until the college can demonstrate that any required ongoing training was likely to lead to improved classroom processes and ultimately to improved student outcomes. Only when the college has demonstrated that its accreditation processes are grounded on criteria related to the effectiveness of the training to improve student outcomes should the possibility of mandatory recertification be considered for discussion.
In conclusion, we reiterate the board of trade's strong support for Bill 31, An Act to establish the Ontario College of Teachers and to make related amendments to certain statutes. We believe our recommendations are constructive and serve to improve the legislation under consideration. We acknowledge the important contribution teachers are making to our community.
While our dialogue will focus on the stakeholders who have represented themselves in this committee room, we need to remind ourselves who we really are representing: We're acting in the best interests of the present children and the future children of Ontario. We need to build strong partnerships between all stakeholders to ensure the educational system we are building on through this bill truly reflects the needs of the beneficiaries of our actions: the children. Bill 31 offers us, the people of Ontario, the opportunity to work together and build a solid foundation in the educational system for the future.
Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to return you to page 3 of your brief, where you say that a minimum of 17 of the 31-member council, 61%, and a likely maximum of 20, 65%, will be members of the profession. Can you indicate where you get the 20?
Mr Vincent: Not immediately, no, I can't.
Mr Wildman: I was just wondering if it may be that you're responding to concerns that have been raised by teachers' federations about three of the 17 being representative of private schools and of supervisory staff and whether you're suggesting that instead of them being part of the 17 they might in fact be added to the 17, and that's where you get the 20.
Mr Vincent: I don't know offhand.
Ms Shelagh O'Connor: I can get back to you on that. It's a good question.
Mr Wildman: Quite frankly, the federations would be quite pleased, as you might expect, if there were 20 members instead of 17, and that would indeed significantly increase the professional component of the board, and it would then make sense, as you've suggested, to increase the number of the public.
Mr Vincent: I guess our intent would be to increase the lay representatives on the board for that balance.
Mr Wildman: Also, in terms of the OECD study that you mentioned, is it not also the case that a number of the jurisdictions studied do not teach all of the students in a publicly funded system, so when it is found that in Canada we spend substantially more, or in the higher percentile, on public education, it's because a much larger percentage of our students go to the public system, and that might explain some of the differences?
Ms O'Connor: It may explain some of the differences, but not completely. We're being compared to the United States and Great Britain and France. Those systems are comparable to ours in terms of who is in the public system and who isn't.
Mr Wildman: I would suggest that in the UK there's a significant element that goes to what they call public schools but are in fact private schools.
Ms O'Connor: I know what you mean.
Mrs Boyd: Also, that's not the only issue. We also know from studies that have been done on that study that there are a number of those jurisdictions where the students who are tested have already been weeded out substantially, in terms of people being directed into other systems, directed into non-academic professions and so on. So while we all agree -- I don't think there's anybody here who disagrees -- that we want to be sure that we are getting the highest quality of education, and the reason we're certainly supporting the creation of an office whose focus is ensuring that quality, and we know you're supporting that too -- I think it is not particularly helpful for us to be using data that really aren't comparable around that quality.
1050
Having said that, that doesn't mean we aren't in favour of really trying to improve the quality; we certainly are, and we need to all focus our attention on that. But I think it has been particularly demoralizing for people engaged in the education profession to have that kind of data used to criticize our system when it isn't completely comparable.
I think that's one of the reasons we get this kind of polarity between educators and the business community often around these issues, because there's a sense that's rather unfair. So I think when we're looking at it, we need to know that although the goals are the same in terms of quality, some of the ways in which people have envisioned achieving that kind of quality are quite different, and legitimately quite different.
Mr Skarica: Recently David Cooke, the House leader for the third party, made two unusual statements. The first one was that he wants an audit of the Premier's income tax statement -- I'm not going to ask you about that one -- but secondly, he made this comment in the Legislature:
"What the teachers and the federations want is an absolute majority on the governing council. I just say to you that if that were allowed to happen, the college would be destroyed. If that were the case, we might as well accept the proposal the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and others came up with to turn the Ontario Teachers' Federation into the college."
Do you have any comment about that statement?
Mr Vincent: Yes. Based on our presentation today and dialogue that we've had around it, we're in strong support of increased lay representation on the board itself. I think it's indicative of what our society wants, which is a more active partnership in the education field. We also highlighted in some of our research around there that it's also necessary to have supervisory staff included in that council as well to reflect the changing needs of the education field. We support a stronger lay representation on the board and providing that balance in the education system.
Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much for taking the time to provide us with your views on the issue. I am not an education research expert, so I will let the research experts haggle and argue over which study represents what. All I know is that many of the small business owners in my community -- and I recognize that small businesses are the biggest employers of our education graduates -- express concerns about what they think the, if I may use the word, product is, the students who are coming out. I appreciate the point you're making, that we need to have an evaluation of the professional and the ongoing educational programs that are happening so that we have some benchmarks of what we're doing out there in terms of education.
Have you given any thought or turned your attention at all to the Education Quality and Accountability Office? It's been described as providing an independent audit of the quality of education in Ontario and perhaps if it is functioning appropriately, it might well give us some information that we wouldn't have to dispute and argue over. We'd have a better feel for what is actually happening in the education system in terms of quality.
Have you got any comments about that particular proposal?
Ms O'Connor: Yes. We have, in our discussions over the years, discussed this issue at length and, like the group before, we are in the process of formulating a policy around it. But I will state that I, as a staff member of the board, sit on a number of committees that are business-education committees. I have worked with Joan Green on a number of occasions and have communicated with her a lot. We are definitely in agreement with the principles of the office and look forward to working further with the office to establish some kind of -- we call them standards, and I'm not too sure other people want them, but standards and standardization of tests and so forth. I can't tell you any more than that, but we think it's a very positive thing that's happening right now.
Mr Patten: I missed part of the explanation from my colleague down the way in commenting on the international testing. In relation to costs, I'd like to just point out this differential, I believe, that there are many educational systems outside of Canada that do not deal with the responsibilities that we do in Canada, and particularly in Ontario, in terms of children with special needs or youngsters with special needs.
In the most multicultural nation in the world, surely Ontario must be the most multicultural province, and there are costs related to helping youngsters achieve a certain level of literacy to be able to deal with the curriculum and things of that nature. I suspect that probably would not be true in comparing our system cost-wise with some other systems internationally, where the educational system is a fairly exclusive activity of learning and that people with special needs would probably be in special institutions and that would not be seen as part of the cost of education.
I would just caution you on that when comparisons are made and that we really compare apples with apples and not apples with oranges. Like my colleague, I think I'd just like to underline that particular point. It's an important point when we look at costs, and I think we always must, but often we don't take into consideration some of the hidden costs of our attempt to be more humane, be more realistic about what constitutes helping to prepare a youngster for being able to truly learn, and the universality that we offer our population.
Ms O'Connor: Can I just comment? I absolutely agree with you in that there are hidden costs we do have to be aware of and that our system is excellent in serving the needs of learning-disabled children or special-needs children and we take your point very well. However, as Janet Ecker did mention, there is a concern in the business community that sometimes students graduating from our high schools are not well enough prepared. So point taken.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I think you're the first group, at least the first group I've been present for, that's actually touched on mandatory recertification. It's certainly something I hear from the teachers in terms of what will this lead to, what is it all about. I think we certainly do have some work in that area.
Do you know of any other groups that have an actual mandatory recertification, mandatory upgrading or whatever you might want to call it, in other groups that you know of?
Mr Vincent: No.
Mr Miclash: I appreciate your input on that particular subject.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, much appreciated.
Mrs Ecker: Mr Chair, just for the interest of the committee and Mr Miclash's question, the Regulated Health Professions Act does require all the colleges to put in a mandatory quality assurance program which would make provisions. However, they may vary from college to college and that is obviously the decision of a council to make, but that there is a mandatory component to it.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Our next scheduled appointment is the Aboriginal Education Council. I've just been informed that Mr Maracle is on his way. My further understanding is that our next group, the 11:30 group, is here, the Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario, so with the agreement of all members and the federation, we'll put them into our next slot.
Mr Patten: An aboriginal group made a representation yesterday. Is this a different group?
The Acting Chair: It is a different group. It was the network. This is a different group this morning.
FEDERATION OF CATHOLIC PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS OF ONTARIO
The Acting Chair: Please come forward. Good morning, and welcome. If you could introduce yourselves, please feel free to proceed.
Mrs Mary Ann Cuderman: Thank you. My name is Mary Ann Cuderman. I'm the president of the Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario. This is our executive director, Mr Patrick Smith.
I would like to thank you for allowing us to be here today. There was a little problem getting in, but I'm glad we did. Your docket was full and you made room for us -- other people didn't show -- and we're appreciative of that, believe me.
1100
The Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario -- FCPTAO for short -- is the only recognized, democratic provincial voice of parents in the English separate school system in Ontario. We have been this voice for 56 years. In 1995, we represented 60% of the parents and guardians of the Catholic school population through full unit and associate board membership. The federation is governed by a 19-member board; 18 are elected by the general membership and a spiritual director is appointed by the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops.
As volunteers, our directors devote considerable time and effort to field work. Our members sit on various ministry committees such as the assessment advisory committee, the Ontario Parent Council and the school council implementation network. We also have representation on the Council of Ontario Separate Schools and the advisory committee of the Institute for Catholic Education.
The mission statement of the federation is:
"We the members of the federation, as the primary educators of our children, shall strive to ensure that they receive the best possible Catholic education, enabling them to become contributing members of the church and society in accordance with God's will."
Our statement of support for Bill 31: The Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario strongly supports the establishment of a College of Teachers.
We recognize that education is a shared responsibility and greatly value the partnership of home, church and school, and the integral role our teachers play in that partnership. We see the parents as the providers of the resource -- the child -- and the teaching staff, the school if you will, as providers of the experience -- the curriculum.
Partnerships are formal and informal contracts in which each partner agrees to furnish a part of the resources and labour for an enterprise, and by which each shares in some proportion of the success or failure. Both parents and teaching staff must become partners to actively provide material resources and caregiving resources to realize the success that comes from a well-educated child.
We see this regulatory body -- the Ontario College of Teachers -- as a vehicle which will enable teachers to take fuller responsibility for the practice, conduct, ongoing education and public accountability for their profession.
This is an opportunity to greatly enhance student learning.
The FCPTAO would like to specifically comment on certain aspects of Bill 31 as follows:
Composition of the governing council and committees: In Bill 31, it is directed that the governing council be composed of 17 persons who are members of the college and 14 persons who are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. This provides for a majority from the profession itself, which is as it should be, and also provides for participation from the larger community in a balance that FCPTAO supports.
In order to represent the interest of the greater public which the education system serves, it is imperative that they be represented on the council that will govern the college, and also on the committees of that council.
There is a significant trend towards broader citizen participation in the educational process, and if education is to realize the notable values of this broader base, then vehicles such as the College of Teachers governing council and committees must be provided whereby citizen groups may work most effectively and make maximum contribution.
Parent representation on the council that will govern the College of Teachers will assist in the creation of a positive working relationship that implies a sharing of information, responsibility, skill sets, decision-making and accountability that is characterized by (a) a shared sense of purpose and (b) mutual respect.
Of particular interest to the FCPTAO is the recommendation in The Privilege of Professionalism that there be three parents appointed to the governing council. Though we strongly support the author's recommendations of parent representation, we firmly believe that FCPTAO, with representation from other interested Catholic groups, is the natural vehicle to develop an application form and a process of nomination for the Catholic parent who will be appointed to the council.
Ongoing education of members: FCPTAO supports that one of the focuses of the College of Teachers will be to provide the ongoing education for members of the college. Mandatory participation in professional development would lead to a higher standard of practice that will benefit the entire educational community.
Provision of the most current information and procedures to teachers will ultimately ensure that students will become productive members of society and be able to meet any of the future challenges they encounter as they prepare for their entrance into the global economy and workplace. Such participation will enable teachers to hold themselves up as role models of the benefits of lifelong learning.
Conclusion: FCPTAO supports this initiative to establish a self-regulating body for our teachers. With a balanced composition on the governing council, there is affirmation of the partnership that does exist with parents. Working together, we will continue to improve our system of education so that all students have ongoing equitable access to education and training, enabling them to take their rightful place in society.
FCPTAO is committed to excellence in Catholic education. We have known for over 50 years that ever-increasing and meaningful parental involvement in education does make a difference. Parents have the desire to be involved, but have often in the past not been so empowered. The College of Teachers and the inclusion of parental appointments on the governing council will provide credence to the initiatives of the last several years to recognize the true partnerships that exist in educating the students of Ontario.
Finally, all of our directors cannot be here today, because as you see from where we live -- we live across the province -- it's almost impossible, but they are aware that this presentation is being made today and have sent their full support for the document that has been presented to you.
Mr Skarica: Thank you very much for your presentation. I note that you are quite pleased with the amount of parent representation that would be on the governing council. Mr Patten, who's here, has suggested -- and I don't mean to embarrass him -- he feels 10% to 15% of the entire council should be representatives of the public and that would be sufficient. That would mean that of the 31 you'd have anywhere from three to five members of the public, and probably of that group one or two parents at most. Could you comment as to his comments and if you think that would be at all appropriate?
Mrs Cuderman: I would suggest to rethink that, because education is a shared responsibility. It's quite unique. We have partnerships that have to be developed and are being developed and promoted through school councils, that include the community, the teaching staff, the non-teaching staff and the parents.
As far as the parent number goes, I couldn't accept any less than three because there are three recognized systems of education that have to be accounted for. There is the French system, there is the public system and then there is the Catholic system. In all fairness, there should be one from each system sitting there.
Mr Skarica: The Ontario Teachers' Federation has suggested that, all right, perhaps 25% of the 31 could be representatives of the public; ie, of the 31, five or six -- what's 25%? I guess it's seven or eight. You can tell I haven't been in school for a long time. Seven or eight of those would be public representatives, and the rest of them would be elected members. What would your answer be to that? Would that be sufficient?
Mrs Cuderman: No. The education system is accountable to the public and the public must be represented in decent numbers on that college.
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I've had the opportunity to meet with Lucy Hendrikx, one of your directors from London, to share her views on the issue, and I'm pleased to see she's signed her name to this report.
From more of a philosophical perspective, some of the teachers' affiliates have expressed concern that the establishment of the college will lead to the detriment of the education system. Is that a concern that you have as representatives, that in the longer term there's going to be these complications and the education system will be harmed in some form?
Mr Patrick Smith: No, I don't think so at all. I think the establishment of the College of Teachers will simply enhance the education process. I can't see how it could be a detriment at all.
1110
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): On page 2 of your brief, you've made the comment that 17 members of the college would be teachers. Three of those are going to be from the supervisory categories. You stated that you think this provides for a majority from the profession itself. We've heard comments that people who are not actually in classroom teaching, who are supervisors, shouldn't be listed as one of those 17. Could you comment on that?
Mrs Cuderman: I don't feel that I am, let's say, knowledgeable enough to really comment on that. The teachers certainly have their concerns and they should be listened to. From our point of view, the ratio of 17 who are members of the college, however that falls into place, that's fine, but 14 should be from the broader community. That's what our stand is. I'm sure the teachers will answer to what issues they have as to the breakdown of that 17.
Mrs Ross: Do you think principals and supervisors have a responsibility to education and should be involved in that process as well?
Mrs Cuderman: They should be involved, yes, because they are definitely responsible in the education system, especially the principal in his capacity as manager of that school.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): The teachers I have had an opportunity to talk to keep bringing up the point, "The OTF can fill this function; we don't need another level of bureaucracy." As you know, our government is very much against more bureaucracy. They accuse me of being part of a system that's going to create more bureaucracy, because the OTF can serve this role and does serve part of this role now. Do you believe the Ontario Teachers' Federation can be the body to regulate the profession?
Mrs Cuderman: No. I think we're talking public accountability here and I believe that's going to fall into place with the establishment of the college.
Mr Miclash: Thank you for the presentation. Mandatory participation in professional development -- you indicated that a lot of your group is not here today. I know some of them are from Sudbury. I represent the riding of Kenora, which happens to be quite a bit farther than just Sudbury. A lot of the teachers I've spoken to have really wanted this clarified in terms of what is meant by "professional development." I would like you to expand on what you mean by mandatory participation in this professional development.
Mrs Cuderman: My meaning of "professional development" is meaningful time spent learning more of what is available, to go into the classroom and to develop themselves more to be able to present what is going in the classroom. That's my meaning of "professional development." I think it should be an ongoing thing, and that's probably the meaning of "mandatory." It has to be an ongoing thing in order to keep up with what is coming out nowadays and to provide our children with the knowledge they can glean through that. I don't envision professional development days as being days where they gather to talk about things other than education.
Mr Miclash: Would you include, say, community involvement as part of that professional development?
Mrs Cuderman: The way things are going, yes, because I think that's a very important component now -- the community involvement, the partnership with the community in educating our children. Yes, definitely.
Mr Patten: I'll have to read my speech just to see what I said, but I think I was making an observation that somebody's had 10% to 15% public participation. I personally don't believe that percentage is satisfactory in this instance.
What I have picked up and received much representation on is the concept of the classroom teacher, and the feedback we get from teachers is that they feel they are not truly in the majority. I personally support that. I think it's important that they feel this is truly their professional body, to which they would want to be held accountable.
My question is really around the representation of two or three bodies, given the numbers as they stand at this particular stage, which I believe would make a world of difference in the receptivity of teachers related to the numbers game. I believe there are opportunities for other certified teachers, but not practising classroom teachers, to participate, such as principals or supervisory staff.
We had an interesting representation yesterday from the association of faculties of education that said their representation would be from the teaching end of the faculty and therefore they classified that representative as a classroom teacher, which we hadn't heard before, which I found to be interesting. In other words, they would not be from the administration of the faculties of education. Do you have any comment on that?
Mrs Cuderman: No, because I did not know where that was going to fall in, where their representation would come from.
Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. There has been a lot of discussion about the numbers on the board and the role of the college in discipline and not as much discussion before the committee about the role of the college for ongoing teacher training and the accreditation of faculty programs and so on. My friend the member for Kenora raised the problem of the practicality, the logistics of working these kinds of programs out. There's been a suggestion that it would be difficult for a college to carry on ongoing training programs for upwards of 200,000 teachers in the province and that this in some ways might duplicate things boards are already doing and also some of the things the federations are doing themselves. Do you have any concerns in that regard, in terms of avoiding duplication of what boards are already doing in ongoing professional development?
Mr Patrick Smith: I think one of the main purposes of the college would be to monitor what is going on in the province. In that way they could perhaps support activities of professional development across the province and perhaps might even be instrumental in designing some programs for teachers. But I think their main role would be in monitoring what's going on.
Mr Wildman: Then the boards would carry on and they would be then subject to being monitored by the college?
Mr Patrick Smith: They're much closer to the grass roots; they know what's going on in their community. I think they're more suitable to carry out the program.
Mr Wildman: Good. In regard to the discipline side, where there's alleged misconduct, it's also been suggested that perhaps, along the lines of the British Columbia college, the employer-employee relationship between boards and teachers should be carried through notifying the college, and that only subsequent to a decision on discipline being completed by that process would the matter go to the college, and then the college would consider whether or not a certificate should be lifted. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr Patrick Smith: Not too many. That's an area that perhaps is one of the most interesting in the setting up of the college itself, the power the college would have regarding certification of teachers and removing a certificate. That's a very difficult area and probably one where, in unison with the government itself, the Ministry of Education and Training, they would have to work out some sort of a formula. But I'm not in any position to give any advice on that.
Mr Wildman: Okay, fine. The other one is in terms of public accountability and your commitment to public participation, particularly the participation of parents. The College of Nurses, under the Regulated Health Professions Act, has a somewhat larger number. Their numbers are 14 registered nurses and seven registered practical nurses, for a total of 21 by the profession, and 18 members of the public. Would those kinds of numbers meet your concerns about accountability; in other words, if we increased the total number of people on the board of governors of the College of Teachers?
Mrs Cuderman: As long as there were approximately the same percentages being presented, if those numbers were raised in either category, I'd have no problem with that.
1120
Mrs Boyd: I'm interested that you didn't mention in your presentation anything about the pre-service education of teachers. I know that has been a bit of a preoccupation in the past, particularly with respect to religious studies and that sort of thing. I wondered if you wanted to just give us some verbal comments on the importance of pre-service training from the perspective of your federation.
Mrs Cuderman: From our perspective in the Catholic system, our religious departments are just as big as any math or English department in any school, because it's mandatory. There is a need for fully qualified teachers in those areas.
There is movement being made at this point, because I sat with the committee that met with the deans, and we're very pleased at the movement that's being made in that direction, but up until that point there was no opportunity for anybody to go into teachers' college seeking a designation in religion as a teachable option. Therefore, the Catholic system had a great deal of difficulty finding qualified people who had to come in under other designations. They had qualifications in theology and everything that would actually get them a teaching certificate in religion, but it was not recognized. It's very important to the Catholic system that we do have these people, and there is movement being made. Thank you for that, for the colleges of education for coming up and cooperating on that with the Catholic community.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's much appreciated.
Mrs Cuderman: Our pleasure. Thank you very much.
Mr Wildman: In regard to this, would the members of the government party on the committee be prepared to indicate whether or not they would be willing to see an increase in the total number of members of the board but maintain the proportion between public and professionals, in response to the presentation?
The Acting Chair: Does anybody on the government side wish to respond to that?
Mr Skarica: Not at this time.
ABORIGINAL EDUCATION COUNCIL
The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is the Aboriginal Education Council, Mr Maracle. Good morning and thank you for very much for joining us.
Mr Murray Maracle: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We want to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation to the standing committee on social development. It's good to see that we work on Indian time sometimes also. My name is Murray Maracle. I'm a citizen of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. I'm an executive member of the Aboriginal Education Council and the chair of the Aboriginal Institutes Consortium. I'm the vice-president of the First Nations Technical Institute. I am joined today by my daughter, Mindy, who is participating in a job shadow program.
I am also accompanied by LuAnn Hill MacDonald, who is from the Six Nations Reserve. LuAnn is a member of the Aboriginal Education Council and is also on the Aboriginal Institutes Consortium. Tim Thompson is from the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. David McCuaig is Anishnawbe from the Sudbury area and is the coordinator of the Aboriginal Education Council Secretariat. It seems like we just met here yesterday, some of us.
I'll be using my presentation as a guideline, but I may wander now and then. I've been dealing with education for the past 20 years, so I get excited about some of the issues sometimes; I want to add some comments here and there.
The Aboriginal Education Council was established on September 18, 1991, by order in council. The mandate of the AEC is to work in partnership with the Minister of Education and Training to implement the aboriginal education and training strategy.
The aboriginal education and training strategy is a multi-year program designed as a short-term response to the immediate needs of aboriginal students in attendance at mainstream post-secondary institutions in Ontario. The success of AETS is dependent upon active participation and cooperation between institutions and local aboriginal communities. The strategy requires the creation of aboriginal councils having direct authority for matters relating to the strategy.
The proposed legislation will create an autonomous body responsible for determining professional standards, certification and accreditation of teacher education programs. Reports from the Teacher Education Council of Ontario and the Royal Commission on Learning have identified the need to develop a coordinating body with a legislative framework that would be responsible for the professional education of teachers.
Bill 31 has a wide-ranging ability to negatively affect first nation education, both on reserve and in related school boards, while not ensuring fair and equitable representation on the governing structures.
To be eligible to teach in federally operated reserve schools, the criteria specify that teachers must have or be eligible for teacher certification within the province. First-nation-controlled schools may place a higher priority on the sharing of inherent knowledge and wisdom as compared to a standardized perception of a structured way to learn.
My remarks are not limited to on-reserve schools. It is important for you to recognize that a significant number of our students and a significant amount of our funding flow into the provincial school system. Our current statistics reveal that over 8,500 aboriginal students attend your schools, contributing in excess of $60 million in funding to provincial school boards. However, our experience indicates that the system fails to address the needs of aboriginal students. In fact, the record of Ontario schools to retain and successfully graduate aboriginal students is abysmal. This has consequences in increased dependency on the social welfare system. This information is highly relevant to our discussion today and underlines the need to seriously consider our recommendations.
The implementation committee recommends that the College of Teachers should be attentive to the issues raised by aboriginal communities and should assist teachers of aboriginal students to meet their unique needs. However, there are no specific measures proposed, nor is there any process put forward to ensure that aboriginal issues can be addressed.
The current recommendation provides a single seat for aboriginal community participation. Clearly this is inadequate, given the diversity and complexity of aboriginal communities and their education needs.
The requirement for membership in the college as a precursor to employment in publicly funded schools will have a negative impact on elders, community resource workers, uncertified language instructors and classroom assistants who are not recognized by the college. We require a process that recognizes these vital resource people as qualified education professionals.
The accreditation and standards committees are of vital importance to the aboriginal community, as they will have a significant impact on aboriginal teacher education and ongoing professional development. It is necessary to ensure that aboriginal communities have an appropriate mechanism to provide significant input into teacher education programs. Failure to provide sufficient aboriginal community input will result in the college deciding what is best for aboriginal educators. History and experience have proven this approach to be highly unsuccessful.
Many aboriginal organizations have developed their own teacher education programs. The college must provide a process to recognize these programs utilizing the expertise of aboriginal educators, community members and elders.
Standards of practice in education within aboriginal communities and within native classrooms are often quite different from those found in the mainstream. Aboriginal standards of practice are no less rigorous or professional than the mainstream, yet they are often unrecognized. Aboriginal communities have witnessed a great deal of interest from the mainstream in exploring native concepts of holistic education. Therefore, aboriginal-specific professional development and standards of practice should be appraised by aboriginal education experts and elders, as they are the only authority with significant knowledge and experience regarding the needs within aboriginal classrooms.
1130
All teacher education programs must include training in aboriginal cultures, education issues, community development, languages and aboriginal pedagogy.
The proposed College of Teachers will dramatically change the way in which teacher qualifications are acquired and the ongoing learning process for professional teachers. The establishing committee of the college has acknowledged that the aboriginal community has specific requirements and concerns relative to teacher education and training practices. However, the college has done very little to ensure that specific measures are in place that will provide meaningful and significant aboriginal participation in the change process. I will be making recommendations for increased aboriginal participation.
I recognize that many presenters are asking for an increase in representation. However, I want to make it extremely clear that my request comes from being the first people of this land. We are not to be confused with an interest group.
The following recommendations will provide the necessary measures to improve aboriginal control over aboriginal education:
That the proposed legislation contain a process to address the specific situations of aboriginal teachers who do not possess all the qualifications required by the College of Teachers. We require a process that will deal specifically with aboriginal language and traditional teachers which will either exempt them from the legislation or recognize the professional value of their expertise.
Significantly increase the number of aboriginal community representatives on the governing council in order to ensure equitable representation. Create designated seats for an aboriginal teacher, an aboriginal faculty of education member and an aboriginal student teacher on the council.
Create an aboriginal body of the college that is responsible for all aboriginal education issues. The body would be elected by aboriginal members of the college, would report to the governing council and would have representation on the executive committee and all standing committees.
Required component of all teacher education programs to include training in aboriginal education issues, aboriginal culture, language, curriculum design and pedagogy.
Aboriginal organizations and institutes must be responsible for accrediting their own aboriginal teacher education programs and ongoing professional development opportunities. The college must provide a process to recognize these programs, utilizing the expertise of aboriginal educators, community members and elders.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time. I look forward to any questions and comments you may have regarding our presentation today, and my colleagues may help me field some of these questions.
Mr Miclash: Murray, thank you for your presentation and for joining us here today. You indicated that you would certainly like to see the expansion of aboriginal representation on the governing committee. I'm interested in how you would see these people chosen from the aboriginal community in terms of representing the entire province.
Mr Maracle: As was indicated yesterday, there are processes there now through the political organizations and the other organizations that are out there that have specifically geographic and issue-related situations we could draw from quite easily.
Mr Miclash: Another concern is the issue of the traditional language teachers and the exemption of these particular teachers from the authority of the college. It's been a concern that's been raised earlier as well. What do you think the bill should do to protect these teachers?
Mr Maracle: The word "exemption" is one we use that I don't actually feel comfortable with. It's one we all understand. An exemption means that we're going to allow something to happen because we don't know how to deal with it.
I think what we should do is recognize these people, these instructors for what they actually are: aboriginal teaching, educational professionals. I would like some process that would allow that to happen, so we would not have somebody exempted from something, but they would be recognized under the legislation as being professional teachers.
Mr Patten: Good to see you again. I suppose, as I mentioned yesterday, the creation of the college as it's proposed at the moment has a cultural bias and hasn't taken into consideration the organization, the culture and the network in your circumstances. One of the tests, it seems to me, of the legislation in truly respecting and addressing the issues you present, and I think rightly present and have presented very clearly, is whether we're able to provide the flexibility to address your needs, not as an afterthought, but with true respect, and acknowledge that you already have things in place, you have an approach to learning which is different.
Your concept of education, your concept of the elders, which to me is a very beautiful concept, require respect. It seems to me your recommendation number 3 is a good one, and that is to create an aboriginal body as part of the college, to which we can work out some direct representation.
Having one aboriginal representative on the council obviously doesn't do the trick. I mean, "We'll do the numbers game and we'll provide two francophones and we'll have an aboriginal member," this kind of thing. I don't mean to be cynical but to make the point that it does not engage truly and work with you in terms of your educational, cultural background. I was going to ask the same question as my colleague here, and that was the manner in which you can have various representations to deal with that. Could it be a committee, as you see it, that would have responsibility and report to the council in terms of all the issues that would affect your community?
Mr Maracle: Yes, I think it could. I think your comments are well taken. I have to say this: This is not the first time aboriginal people have been in front of committees. We go in front of committees all the time. All of these issues we talk about are certainly not new. The thing that we have to decide, and we have to decide as aboriginal people, is we come and we keep educating and we keep educating and these are the issues we want. But ultimately the people sitting over there, you people over there are the ones who are going to decide, and if you decide that you want to deal with aboriginal people on an even partnership basis, then it can happen over on that side of the table. On this side of the table, we've been ready to do that for years and years. Like I say, 20 years went by in my career and I saw very little change, to be quite truthful with you. Most of the changes happen on the aboriginal side, by trying to adapt our processes -- and we're getting tired of adapting our processes -- to match types of legislation.
Mr Wildman: I too think recommendation number 3 is one that really does speak to the need to ensure the college properly allows for accreditation and recognition of aboriginal teachers and elders for their expertise. Also, I think number 4 is a very good idea, but I'd like to ask you about number 5. I understand why it's there and why you're proposing it. I'm just wondering if at this point you would have some suggestions for the committee as to how this might be done, how it might be implemented.
Mr Maracle: Again, we've taken most of our recommendations and comments from meetings we have attended with other organizations and such. There are a lot of organizations and bodies out there that are actually doing this now, that have made a lot of inroads in this area, so it's a matter of recognizing and giving those bodies some status and process of having input into the situation, the recommendation. They're already out there and happening. It's recognizing and bringing those forward.
1140
Mrs Boyd: I'm very pleased to see you here today. One of the objectives when we formed the Aboriginal Education Council was to give a vehicle to give the kind of advice and the kind of working together that I think it's achieved. I wouldn't like to see that spoiled by the creation of a college that didn't acknowledge the very specific needs the community has and the way in which the community regards education. I'm very interested in your third recommendation. I think that may well find a way out.
In terms of the representation itself of aboriginal people in the college, when you talk about the concern about that, particularly around traditional teachers and language teachers, as I read the legislation -- and I may be wrong about this -- the legislation looks permissive to me in terms of the college enabling that to happen. Is that how you read it, or do you think something specific needs to be read into the legislation? I know your experience is that permissive doesn't do it for you, but I'd like a comment on whether you think the actual legislation needs to specify that or whether that would have to come from the college itself.
Mr Maracle: From the experience I have, it's going to have to be very definitely put down by the college. What happens in most cases when legislation is put forward and we're trying to govern something or control something is it becomes an exclusionary process, and every time we get into an exclusionary process we start excluding things and pushing things to the outside. In the aboriginal process we have an inclusionary process, so that when we want to deal with an issue and we come to a meeting, sometimes you might have 50 or 60 or 70 community people there who are included in the process. When we get into legislation and we get into things like trying to control something, it becomes an exclusionary process. I almost think it has to be definitely put in language that will allow it to take place even in that exclusionary process.
Mrs Boyd: Yes, and I think you have a lot of experience around that. Certainly if people are looking only at the percentage of the total population of the province of Ontario, you lose every time, and that's not very appropriate, is it?
I love your recommendation number 4. It's something I think is necessary. I know one of the longstanding issues for aboriginal people is the way our students continue to be taught, are taught today in our classrooms about what the relationships between aboriginal people and the newcomers to this continent were. I share your view that it should be a specific component, that it should be taught by aboriginal people from an aboriginal point of view, not just a Eurocentric point of view, because I think that has perpetuated the difficulties between us in understanding one another. I think that's an absolute necessity as well.
Mr Maracle: One comment I would like to make referring back to the Aboriginal Education Council: A large evaluation has just been completed after a four- or five-year process on that, and the recommendations, from our side of the table, are a step in the right direction. We are increasing participation and we are increasing retention rates in the schools.
Mrs Boyd: It's been very successful. I think those who were sceptical when this was put forward as a proposal have learned from the experience that it was a very valuable tool.
Mr Maracle: Very much so.
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I thank the Aboriginal Education Council for making the presentation today. On page 3 of your presentation it says: "However, our experience indicates that the system fails to address the needs of aboriginal students. In fact the record of Ontario schools to retain and successfully graduate aboriginal students is abysmal. This has consequences in increased dependency on the social welfare system." Would a proposed College of Teachers, with the recommendations that you've put forward, address this problem?
Mr Maracle: Yes, I think they would, especially the recommendation that all teachers could take some type of aboriginal cultural training, pedagogy, understanding aboriginal issues. It would help a great deal. We don't realize what our aboriginal students are going through when they leave a very comfortable community, going into a very sometimes uncomfortable community and what the effects of that are. The teacher in the classroom is the first line of defence for some of these students. Sometimes that defence has not been a warm, welcome defence for the student. Having some of our recommendations worked on could help that considerably.
Mr Skarica: I'd like to go to your recommendation number 1, page 6, which I find intriguing. You indicate there that the legislation should "contain a process to address the specific situations of aboriginal teachers who do not possess all of the qualifications required by the College of Teachers."
There appears to be a section that does outline that situation. I'd like your comment on it, and it's subsection 60(2). I don't know if you're familiar with it, but it deals with the letters of permission. It was commented on and actually opposed by one of the teacher affiliates, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, but not opposed or even commented on by the OTF or the OSSTF, which I find of interest. In any event, it indicates that there could be a letter of permission granted "to a board authorizing the board to employ a person who is not a member of the Ontario College of Teachers to teach in an elementary or secondary school if the minister is satisfied that no member is available," but that letter is only effective for one year. Do you think that would cover the situation you're referring to there, or do you need something in addition?
Mr Maracle: What we're doing with that section is putting a Band-Aid on a process that's been around a long time. If we are going to recognize these individuals as qualified professional teachers, which we in our communities do, we should say that in the legislation and provide a process in the legislation for that to happen. If we have to continually come back every year to gain a letter of standing, it does not put those people in the professional light we as community members put them in.
Mr Skarica: What kind of process would you recommend then? Do you have any details you can give us?
Mr Maracle: If my colleagues would like to help me around this one, I know there are aboriginal programs out there now that have the ability to recognize their teachers and bring their teachers to the standard they want. I think that process out there now could be moved forward or included in some fashion within the legislation process.
Mr Tim Thompson: Further to that, it's community-based. In each of our communities and regions there is a lot of diversity, but we each have processes by which we identify who our traditional teachers are and who our language teachers are, and we apply that in our own areas. We've brought that to various tables and various forums in the past. Like Murray says, letters of standing are not formal recognition; they provide a lesser qualification and oftentimes they're not easy to achieve at the board level. We could work that through if we had some kind of process that was community-based, like what we're suggesting in recommendation 3.
Mr Carroll: If I can get a little clarification, are you asking that everyone who teaches in an on-reserve school be a member of the college?
Mr Maracle: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
Mr Carroll: That everyone who teachers in a first nations school be a member of the college? Is that what you would like to see happen?
Mr Maracle: Whether they're a member of the college or they're recognized, if they go hand in hand -- and I think under your legislation they go hand in hand, in the way that I look at the legislation -- if they are a teaching professional, they will be a member of the college. All we're saying is that some of our teachers are not full-fledged members, if you want to put it that way, and sometimes they are not allowed to take part in any of the committees or any of the elections and such that may be there. Sometimes you may be throwing away a fairly valuable resource in those cases.
Mr Carroll: I don't disagree with that. You see some benefit then, obviously, in the College of Teachers. You would like to have all people who teach in first nations schools to be part of that process and you see it as being a beneficial process. Does that sum up what we're talking about?
Mr Maracle: I think if the process would take into consideration some of the recommendations that were put forward yesterday and today, there would be a better chance that all aboriginal teachers would want to participate in that process. I cannot speak for the teachers, because we work in a different system. In the system we work in, the decisions come from way down below and we bring those decisions forward. We would have to take that back to our teaching professionals with those changes that perhaps may be required. Personally, I think that may happen.
Mr Carroll: On another point, can Mindy tell us about her job shadow program that she's working on?
Mr Maracle: Just to preface that, I asked Mindy what she thought about the whole thing yesterday. I'll let her explain it.
Mr Carroll: I don't want to put you on the spot, Mindy, but we'd be interested.
Ms Mindy Maracle: Sitting here for the past few days, I feel the majority of you people -- that it was more of a racial issue than the issue you're here for.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's much appreciated.
That brings us to the end of our presentations and presenters for today, but before we adjourn I'd like to address the concern Mr Wildman brought up earlier in terms of the presentation of the amendments to be submitted to the clerk by Friday.
The clerk has conferred with legislative counsel. She is available to all the members from this moment on until Friday afternoon. I think it's fair to say we're working on the premise that when we say Friday, we mean the end of the day Friday. I can't imagine there's any disagreement. It is conceivable, perhaps because of the volume, that it might not be possible to get everything done by Friday afternoon, so I think probably we're looking for some flexibility. I would look for a nod or some indication from committee members that if it can't all be done by Friday, some time Monday, as much as possible in terms of reasonable access by all three parties on Monday.
Mr Patten: We had scheduled two days, I gather. In light of the flexibility, because we're going to be short of time, I throw this out as a suggestion: Because we may need Monday to do some further work, maybe we could meet Tuesday and Wednesday rather than Monday and Tuesday, if that can be considered.
Mr Skarica: Bev Hammond is here from our House leader's office. I had asked her if they could discuss that tomorrow and move the hearings to Tuesday and Wednesday as opposed to Monday and Tuesday.
The Acting Chair: There seems to be all-party agreement on that. Am I in a position to approve that, Mr Clerk?
Mr Wildman: We need the House leaders' agreement.
Clerk Pro Tem: The committee has agreed to make a request.
The Acting Chair: The committee has agreed to the request, so we then have agreed that we are reconvening on Tuesday, April 30, at 3:30. That will be the next time. Fair enough.
The committee adjourned at 1153.