Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time.

We are on Resolution 16.2. School Programs (c) Assessment and Evaluation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,988,400, on page 34 of the Estimates book.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I think at the end of last time we had been looking at the issues surrounding Brandon's concerns with notification of school exams and what actually had been sent to teachers. The minister had read into the record, amongst other things, a paragraph from a letter which she had copied to me, which she had also sent, I believe, to Crocus Plains Regional school. It does say in that letter that the written response questions and the approximate ratio of 40 to 60 percent, respectively, will be the examination of multiple choice and written response for the 40S exam.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that I am not clear whether that letter was sent to divisions or whether it was sent to teachers. I thought I heard the minister at the end of last session saying that it was sent to teachers directly; whether that was meant or whether it was intended that the division send that to the teachers, I am not sure. It also seems to me there could have been additional clarity in that, and I am raising this for next year.

It seems to me that to be absolutely certain, for greater certainty, as we say in the Legislature, a note could have been made that said this reverses the proportions of previous years. This would have underlined the change that had taken place. So, in the interests of absolute clarity for next year, those kinds of changes should be noted as changes, changes in emphasis, changes in proportion, changes in percentages, changes in the nature of questions. It seems to me, and I have heard from teachers outside of the Brandon division, that this change in emphasis was not clear to them. I am suggesting it to the minister for future reference that absolute clarity be something that is given attention. It seems to me from what I heard that this was the major issue.

Some people have talked about the nature of the exam. I am not sure that is something that was widely represented in the discussions with me. Some people have said the exam was more difficult. Some said it was less difficult. I think you tend to get that kind of discussion around any exam, so the proportions and the nature of the questions seem to me to be the most important. Indeed, Canada's Principles for Fair Student Assessment is very clear on that as well.

I have tried now on a couple of occasions in the last dealings in Estimates to ascertain from the minister what exactly was sent. I understand that this letter was sent, and the minister will explain in a minute, I hope, how it was sent. I am advising that there be greater clarity next time and that changes be specifically noted. I understand that the department also sent manuals. They were not big manuals, but they did perform the function of manuals, describing what the examination room would look like, what the teachers should do, what they were responsible for, what the schools were responsible for.

* (1450)

The Canada's fair assessment guide also, however, suggests representative samples, complete copies of questions or tasks, directions, answer sheets and score reports, and I have asked the minister on a couple of occasions whether this in fact has been done and if she could provide evidence of how that had been done. I understand that this is a very firm practice in Alberta. It is one that classroom teachers welcome. They are very used to it. They have been doing it for a number of years, and they do get very specific directions every year in the fall long before the examinations are taken.

I also wanted to ask the minister about her comments in the paper. She indicated that--and I may be reading more into her comments than she intended--but she seemed to indicate last time that the only reason that she released the marks school by school was because of Brandon. I find that a little difficult to believe.

It seems to me that the minister, in Bill 33 and other discussions of New Directions, clearly had an idea that the release of school marks was part of a market-based system of education whereby choice across divisions, the recognition of schools by a straight-number factor, were exactly the kinds of things this government was looking for.

In her comments I am concerned about a number of things. One, again, goes back to the Fair Student Assessment Practices where it indicates that those who are doing the examining should investigate the performance of students from different backgrounds. "Investigate," to me, seems to indicate research, evaluation and a thoughtful report. I do not get the sense from the minister that she believes that is the department's responsibility. In previous discussion, she said this was the division's responsibility. My response was, the divisions do not have the comparative material that would be required for a responsible evaluation of that area, and it is something which Fair Student Assessment Practices indicate as required.

The minister, in her comments in the newspaper--and I think we have all had the experience of being misquoted in the newspaper, so I am not going to suggest that the minister said that; I will leave it to her--I am quoting from the March 22 Free Press where she makes comments upon the relative pass rates in particular schools. I do not know whether she was quoted correctly or not, but the paper says that, quote, McIntosh was amazed that Gordon Bell beat out other Winnipeg School Division institutions such as Kelvin and Grant Park, which are in much more affluent areas.

It is that kind of comment which, I think, is not part of the process of fair assessment practices. Were you misquoted? [interjection] While I am pleased that the minister recognized Gordon Bell, if she was in fact quoted appropriately, I do not think it is appropriate, and if the minister was misquoted, I am sure she will--this is a good opportunity in fact to put that straight that other institutions, for example, such as Kelvin and Grant Park, are in much more affluent areas. First of all, both of those schools take students in different programs from areas which are not as affluent as they might appear at first glance from the catchment area. I think the minister might have found on closer examination that the Kelvin students who took the 40S exam this year were people who in fact had been in the class the previous year, and they had studied on their own. So it was not a fair comparison. These were, I believe, International Baccalaureate students who had then studied on their own for this exam.

The bulk of Kelvin students, as I understand it--and it may be the same for Grant Park as well--will be taking this in the spring. So there are those kinds of comparisons of who is taking it in the spring; who is taking it in the fall; what the conditions are around the taking of the exam. It is also, I think, in some of those areas, Gordon Bell, Kelvin and Grant Park, and probably in other schools too, that at the January exam you are going to have very small numbers, and I think it is quite inappropriate for anyone to generalize from a very small sample. The issue here is that we need larger samples of the kind of investigation of performance and evaluation of examination results as are indicated in the Fair Student Assessment Practices, I think, would make much more sense.

So, Mr. Chairman, my questions really are based upon two things: One is the department's purpose in releasing these results, the nature of investigation and evaluation that they intend to provide, and some questions for the minister on comments which she was quoted as having made in the Free Press on this, which I think caused some dismay in some quarters. I think it will be fair for the minister to tell us exactly what she did say. I will leave it now.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): When we closed yesterday I was in the process of providing the information on the letter to the member. So if I may just conclude with that response, because she has come back to say that I provided her with a quote from a paragraph from a letter. I had been reading that letter into the record when our time was up yesterday. I will absolutely clarify the comments in the paper, why they were said, and in fact, ironically enough, they were sparked by something that the member opposite had said to me that caused me to respond with tongue-in-cheek response to a quote attributed to the member opposite, but that was not reported. It will be interesting. I will go through it.

Perhaps what I can do to speed things up is I have brought a package, a sample of the types of material that go out to people for exams. This one happens to be language arts, but that does not matter. It is the same kind of thing. This is the material sent to teachers in schools. It is sent to the schools to be given to the teachers. The member had asked: How was it sent? Was it just sent to the division? It is sent to the schools for the teachers in those schools to use. The package is here. This particular package, as you can see, Mr. Chairman, is about two inches thick. It has containing in it copies of correspondence beginning in August, copies of the information on dates, on marking, all kinds of information, sample student registration forms, information bulletins, a sample demographic data form, provincial examination process. It contains security procedures, the administration manual for the supervising teachers, et cetera, et cetera, the policies and procedures for provincial examinations and standards tests.

Maybe just to give you an indication for the record, this package of material sent to schools for teachers to prepare them for exams is about two inches thick and the document on top that says what is in the package is two 8 x 11 pieces of paper, single-spaced typing, just to say what is in it. So to say what schools get is a skimpy, unclear package of material, if this is skimpy and unclear, I really would not want to be the recipient of a lot more than this, because this is a lot of material.

So I have three packages like this, Mr. Chairperson, for tabling so the record can show that ample information is sent to the field in advance of examinations. It is very heavy. That is the one package. Here are two more. Can you manage it? There we go. So that is what is sent to schools to be given to teachers in advance of exams.

The member says that, yes, we did say in our letter that there would be 40 percent multiple choice and 60 percent respectively, that is 60 percent written response respectively on the exams. But she said that was not clear enough for teachers. Well, I will read you the statement again, Mr. Chairperson. It says--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Before the minister continues, I just wanted to clarify one thing. You were just sharing this with the members. You did not actually want to put this in the record?

Mrs. McIntosh: Yes.

Mr. Chairperson: You were going to share it?

* (1500)

Mrs. McIntosh: No, I am tabling it. We have accusations that we do not send out enough material. I am tabling the whole darn thing. That is what they get before exams. As I say, that particular example, what I asked for is for a sample--it was before exams of the department--to provide me with the language arts, but it is the same kind of package that is given for the other subjects as well. In this letter to teachers of mathematics giving them specific direction as to what is going to be on the exam, the letter states: The exam, you are reminded that--and then there is a colon and these items are set off separately, so they stand out and they are bullets.

The first bullet is: You are reminded that the examination is based on the mathematics 40S curriculum and information contained in the examination specifications enclosed with this package.

The second bullet says: The examination consists of multiple choice, select and written response, supply questions in the approximate ratio of 40 to 60 percent, respectively. Experience has shown that students tend not to perform as well on the written response sections of assessments and examinations as they do on the multiple choice section. Students should be encouraged to answer written response questions in a complete and concise manner.

Now the member said that that is not clear enough for teachers. I am looking at it saying 40 percent multiple choice, 60 precent, respectively, experience has shown multiple choice does better than written response. They have trouble with written response. I asked them to do a written response clearly and concisely. How much more clear can that be made?

The member says that perhaps it can be made more clear by pointing out that last year it was 60 and 40 percent. That has been pointed out to staff. That has been pointed out in press releases. That was sent out in a press release that we were going to shift onto heavier emphasis on problem solving because--[interjection] All right, so the member is saying that the reason the students did not do well in the exam was because teachers could not figure out that this year's 60 percent problem solving was more than the 40 percent last year.

I think she does a great disservice to teachers. We certainly can take that advice under consideration and spell it out. We can add to that pile of papers and make it much thicker by adding in detail that says last year it was--we can certainly put--[interjection] Excuse me. We can certainly put into the directions next year when we send out the things. How would the member like us to word it? Would she like us to say it will be 40 percent multiple choice and 60 percent written response? That is the same as the exam in June '97 and different from the exam in June '96, which was different from the pilot in June 1994, and here is what it was in June 1992. Perhaps that would be clearer for the member.

What we are saying here is that it is very clearly indicted what the exam is going to be. Most teachers--I mean, this curriculum has been there for nine years--would be familiar with all of the conversations and publicity we have had about emphasizing problem solving this go-around. Nonetheless, if she feels that teachers cannot figure that out, we can certainly add a sentence saying: This is the same as last year and different from the year before and different from the year before that. If she thinks that will help them, then we would be pleased to do it. It takes no trouble to put that extra sentence in.

We did, however, feel by saying that it was 40 percent multiple choice, 60 percent, respectively, an emphasis on written problem solving this year because they had trouble in it and asked for extra work on problem solving, we thought most teachers would understand that. I am surprised the member feels that they were not able to, but nonetheless in recognition of her concern that teachers could not figure that out, we will put it in next time.

The letter was sent to, as I indicated, the teachers in October. At that time they were told the relative waiting--even though I appreciate what the member says, they probably would not know what that meant because they could not compare it to the year before. We felt it was clear. We also attached the table of specifications which accompanied the letter. That went to teachers, principals, with copies to superintendents and boards. I have greater confidence in the teachers of this province to be able to read and understand the material sent out, but I understand from the member that she says teachers themselves could not figure out what that meant. So we will take her word for it, and we will do that--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley, on a point of order.

Ms. Friesen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The minister is deliberately twisting words, putting words into my mouth on what teachers did or did not understand from this. I wanted to point out to the minister that what I offered to her was a suggestion, a sentence, a clarification for next year and it does her no service, I believe, to continue in this manner.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I would invite the member to check Hansard because she did, very definitely, say that it was not clear for teachers, that some teachers had indicated that was not clear for them. I think if she reads it, she will see that she did actually say that was not clear for teachers because it did not point out that even though it did tell them exactly how the exam was going to be broken down, it did not point out it was different from last year. The member clearly said check Hansard, that that was not clear for teachers and therefore we need to include it so that it would be clear for teachers. She can end the commentary from her desk by just checking Hansard and clarifying that for her own comfort.

The member also indicated back here, she had asked the question on releasing results. She asked why I released the results. Well, there were two reasons and these reasons were under consideration. The member is quite right that the department had always wanted to be accountable to the public in terms of letting the public know what was happening in terms of knowledge gained in the divisions. We had, as the member knows, sent out press releases indicating that on testing done to the students in Manitoba--I have named a few examples--the science test for 13-year-olds, we released the generic information about that. The school-by-school breakdown, Brandon School Division was definitely a catalyst for a school-by-school release of marks which to date we had not done. We had been talking in generic terms about 13-year-olds performed this well.

The year before, we had put out our math test results saying average mark in the province is 61 percent. Students did well in calculation but not in problem solving. Hence, next year we will emphasize problem solving. That was in a press release put out to the public, but we did not give the school-by-school breakdown. We gave the overall average mark and a few other interesting pieces of information such as did well in calculations but not in problem solving. Brandon definitely by not wanting the marks to be recognized, sparked calls for people saying: Could we have our marks. We suggested, call your school divisions. They are at complete liberty to provide you with the marks and some school divisions said, no, we do not want to.

The end result was, finally, in order to stop the controversy due to great public demand--and I mean great public demand--we just released the marks. You know, the acceptance with which that was received made us recognize that was the right thing to do, because it got people talking about learning and education and what was going on, et cetera, to inform the public about the outcomes of schooling, and people have a desire to know and they have the right to know. They pay for the system, after all.

* (1510)

To assist schools to be able to set goals for improvement once they have seen their results and become aware of how those compare to others, they can analyze results, including context because we do not release contextual information. They can decide what are the factors that showed our school having different results.

Tests are thoroughly screened, in answer to another question the member made, for racial and cultural bias. They are well prepared in that regard, and we expect all students to meet the expectations of the curriculum regardless of their background. Students with special needs are either exempted or have a special adaptation granted. With the process that we use for curriculum development, with the sensitivity to issues such as bias, aboriginal perspectives and the other integratables in the Foundations for Excellence, we believe that the curriculum base that we use for the standards testing is in fact comprehensive. We do believe that every child in our process deserves the very best of instruction so that they can work towards the achievement of the provincial standard.

(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Here is where the member and I deviate, and ironically enough, she asks me about the comments attributed to me in the Winnipeg Free Press. I find it really interesting because in part my response, which was a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic response in response to questions about the types of things the member is often raising to me--you cannot expect children in certain programs to measure up to the standard, you cannot expect children in poor schools to be able to do as well, you have to dummy down the standards or make exceptions or do something different for children whose socioeconomic background is different or who have English as a second language. You cannot expect students who have these so-called disadvantages to be able to perform to a standard, therefore standards tests are unfair, and many, many, many, many, many, many, many times members of the NDP have stated to me standards tests are grossly unfair because they do not take into account students' socioeconomic background, the fact that they may be new Canadians, the fact that they may be aboriginal, the fact that they may be poor, the fact that they may come from large families, the fact that they may be hungry in the morning. It is not fair to make them take the standards test and expect them to do as well as others.

I have heard that song given to me and sung to me in so many different ways, in so many different harmonies, in so many different keys, and I have always believed that where a student has potential and is willing to be in a school with a teacher that is willing to work, no student deserves to have dummy-down standards given to them because we have low expectations for them. When I hear members opposite in the New Democratic Party say to me, as they say so often, you cannot expect these children to meet the standards, and then they do not say dummy down the standards but they say adjust the standards, take into account these various factors, they are poor, they do not have money, they do not speak English at home, so therefore do not make them try the test, do not have them reach the standard because they will not be able to because we have low expectations for them.

When I got that question, are you surprised that Gordon Bell, low economic socioconditions, did so well, I was being extremely sarcastic when I said, yes, isn't it amazing, isn't it amazing that these students did so extremely well. They not only met the standard, they set the standard, and I was being very sarcastic when I said "isn't it amazing."

In answer to charges that the NDP have made so often that you cannot expect students from that background to do as well as students from the elite schools, and there are many people in Winnipeg and Manitoba who believe that Kelvin school is an elite school, and the member has often talked with great scorn about elite schools, and so I was being very sarcastic when I said, isn't it amazing that these students who do not go to an elite school, many of whom have English for a second language, many of whom are aboriginal, many of whom are poor, many of whom are not registered in the IB program, isn't it amazing that they got the highest marks in Manitoba?

Well, of course, I do not find it the least bit amazing. I was being sarcastic in response to a question. Of course, appearing in print, you do not hear the tone, because I am not the least bit amazed that Gordon Bell did as well as it did because, obviously, in that school, students and teachers are teaching and learning well together, and they have done well.

There is no reason they cannot, and I think that puts a lie to all the hypothesis and the theorizing about--I mean, Winnipeg 1 wrote me a letter, and if I can get it to table it I will table it to you on the same question saying: You should not say you are amazed that Gordon Bell did well. Do you know what they said in their letter to me? They said: You should not be amazed that Gordon Bell did well because--and I think this is the exact quote--even though there are people in this area who are poor and disadvantaged, there are also some students who are very bright and capable.

I wrote back to Winnipeg 1, and I said, listen and look at what you have written and tell me that you do not have low expectations for these students, because they wrote in their letter, even though there are students in the area who are poor and disadvantaged, there are also others who are capable and bright. The connection they made was that those who were poor and disadvantaged were not capable and bright. It may have been their phraseology, but I mean that was a carefully written letter to me on that topic. It was on that very topic, and that was the most revealing sentence. I wrote back and said: Read what you have written and please have higher expectations for your students than that, than to clearly make a distinction between while there are some who are poor and disadvantaged, there are also some who are bright and capable.

Poor and disadvantaged children have every bit as much potential to be bright and capable as those who are not poor and disadvantaged. I am not saying that we should not have extra supports in terms of early intervention or things of that nature for children at risk. That is a different issue. But to imply that, because they are poor and disadvantaged they are not bright and capable, is the kind of attitude that I was trying to break down when I said: Is it not amazing that they did the very best in the province? My sarcasm was addressed exactly toward that attitude exemplified so horribly in that letter and repeated to me ad infinitum by the members of the official opposition in Manitoba.

I will not dummy down standards for students whose ability and potential need only to be brought forward in a good educational setting by a knowledgeable and dedicated teacher, as has happened. If the member read on in that article, she will read me saying there was no pattern that was discernible in terms of where the excellence was and where the areas of nonexcellence occurred. Small schools that did not have department heads, where the teacher had to teach history and English as well as math, and they had no backup support, no resource teachers, no fancy equipment did extremely well.

Big inner city schools such as Gordon Bell, that the member and others in her party are always telling me are full of disadvantaged children who cannot survive without standards being dummied down or all kinds of extra things to make them like those in the elite schools such as Kelvin, there was no discernible pattern. Schools did well in every circumstance. Schools did poorly in every circumstance.

Schools that were well funded, had all kinds of equipment, high specialists, schools with award-winning teachers, all kinds of advantages, money, et cetera, did not do as well as some disadvantaged schools and vice versa. There was no pattern. I had a person phone me and say, well, Mrs. McIntosh, how can you say that there was no pattern. If you went into the schools, I think you would find a pattern. I think you would find the one thing that all those classes had in common, and you and I know what it is but you do not want to say what it is because you are afraid of the union. I said: I am not afraid of the union. Do not be ridiculous. That was said to me--

Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairwoman, would you bring this minister to order? This is just the most ridiculous diatribe I have heard in a long time.

Mrs. McIntosh: Oh, really, well I have to listen to you do this all day long. My chance to answer.

Ms. Friesen: It is your chance to invent.

The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Render): Excuse me. Does the member for Wolseley have a point of order?

* (1520)

Ms. Friesen: Yes, Madam Chair, I have a point of order. My point of order is that the questions that were asked dealt with evaluation and interpretation. They also dealt with the issues of what was distributed to schools in Brandon and elsewhere in the province before the exam. The minister is putting on record a lot of invention, shall we say, and I would suggest that the minister stick to answering the questions, rather than inventing the responses of anonymous people or people that she is not naming. She is putting words into my mouth. It really seems to me that it is wasting the time of the committee. The minister was given some specific questions, and I think she should answer them.

The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Render): The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Chair, on the same point of order, I am answering a question the member put forward. She said, why were you quoted in the paper saying that you were amazed, and then she gave me a little lecture on how I should not have said that, if I said it. She asks me to clarify it, and I am now clarifying it.

Ms. Friesen: On a point of order, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. McIntosh: I am speaking on the point of order, and she is interrupting.

I am answering the question she put as to why those comments appeared in the paper, and she wanted the story behind those comments. I am providing it to her. I am telling her that I had a phone call, and I can get permission to give the name, I am sure it is no problem, saying that we would find one thing in common.

That is in direct answer to her question about why those comments appeared in the paper and her chastisement of me for them. I am explaining to her that those comments were in a certain context, and I am giving her the context. Now, if she does not want the answers, maybe she should not ask the questions. Because if she does not want me to answer the questions, then maybe she should not ask any more.

The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Render): The honourable member for Wolseley I do not believe has a strict point of order. I would also caution the minister to try to make sure that her answers are as close as possible to the question that was asked, but I would say that this is a dispute over the facts.

The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Render): The honourable minister now, to finish her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In response to the member's question about my comments in the paper about the performance of students and why students in certain areas, why it appeared that I had said students in certain areas with certain demographics would do differently than others, I have given most of the answer to that, concluding with the summation that indeed there is no discernable pattern to students doing better or worse in any particular sociodemographic area.

As I indicate to the member, I believe wherever students have the potential and the ability and the willingness to learn, coupled with a dedicated teacher who is working to teach that good things can happen regardless of socioeconomic circumstances, and that, while I have said publicly I have seen no discernible pattern, I did receive a call from a taxpayer of Manitoba who said that I do know what the pattern is, I am just not willing to admit it publicly, because the pattern has to do with teaching and I am afraid of the union.

That is not what I have ever said. I am not afraid of the union. Clearly, clearly I agree with that taxpayer that one of the factors and probably a prime one would be good teaching. We have a lot of good teachers out there. Witness the good performance that we saw in so many of these exams. Witness not just that but the ongoing learning that takes place. We have tons and tons of excellent teachers, so if the member wants to read anything into comments that might have been made--and that comment was made on the radio, by the way, by the taxpayer phoning into the Peter Warren show. If that member wants to read anything into comments made around that by others or by me, what I am saying to you is that I am not at all amazed that the students at Gordon Bell did well. I was being sarcastic, in response to the kind of ongoing low expectations that certain trustees and members of the opposition have for people who are in particular circumstances.

We know that children who are in Grade 1 who are receiving instruction in the Reading Recovery Program--that is when we identify them early, get them into Reading Recovery or other programs--they are succeeding in the development of their reading skills. We have dedicated skilled teachers working with struggling learners, and they are achieving and they are achieving very well. We do not want to create a philosophy of dependency or to expect less of certain children because of where they live. To do that creates a vicious circle--expect less, get less, expect less, get less. We have lived through that for the last 25 years. We have seen what building dependency and low expectations has done to our students in not just the inner city but other places in Manitoba as well. We wish to reverse that. So I hope that clarifies the answer.

I do not think it was ridiculous to respond in detail to the allegations that were implied that she put down. I do not think it was ridiculous to answer not fully and completely because I still left out a lot of detail in that answer, but when she asks a question and wants to know the detail around it and I provide the detail within the time allowed, I do not think that is ridiculous, and I do not think it was fair or kind or right or good of her to say that I invented my answers. That is wrong. That is implying that I am lying, and if she wants to call me a liar, I invite her to have the courtesy and the guts and the courage to come right out and say it rather than say that I am inventing answers. I am not inventing answers. I do not invent answers here, in the House or any place. She can judge by her own standards, but those are not mine. I do not invent answers and I will not accept that.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Chair, well, I will not respond to any of those personal issues. The minister will stand and live by the kinds of comments that she makes on the record.

I will say on the Gordon Bell issue that one of the best letters I saw in the paper on this was that people should have known that Gordon Bell had a long history of success in mathematics, and indeed it has going back to the 1970s.

Mrs. McIntosh: Including its own school board.

Ms. Friesen: Does the minister wish to speak?

Mrs. McIntosh: Oh, sure, okay. Can I have the chance?

Ms. Friesen: The minister, I think, can wait her turn.

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, then why did you ask me if I wanted to speak?

Ms. Friesen: Madam Chair, would you like to take a five-minute recess? I really find this quite intolerable.

Mrs. McIntosh: Well, you interrupted me.

The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Render): Is it in agreement that we take a five-minute recess?

Mrs. McIntosh: No.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Chair, again, the minister will be judged by the kinds of things that she puts on the record.

As I said, I thought the best letter about Gordon Bell indicated its record and that perhaps her discussion of surprise might have been connected to that, as well, that there is not any surprise because it has always had a good record in mathematics. If you have ever been to any of the graduations at Gordon Bell, the maths before, during and after standard exams have been quite breathtaking.

I think the minister was getting close to some of the answers I am looking for when she said that there was no discernible pattern. What I am interested in finding out is what kind of evaluation--this is what I have been asking the questions on--based on the principles laid down in Fair Student Assessment, and that is the principles of the evaluation of exams and the kind of information which is provided around them.

The minister seems only to be able to suggest that there are low expectations when people actually want to talk about evaluation. How do we look at what has succeeded and how do we look at what has not succeeded? The minister only wants to talk in expectations and that is not the issue at all. The issue we have been talking about is evaluation. How do you evaluate the exams?

That was why I was giving her the opportunity, and she called it allegations. It was not. It was framed very carefully. I asked the minister--I said we have both been misquoted. This is the opportunity to put it correctly, and I have some concerns about the kinds of things that have been said. She has indicated that it came from sarcasm which does not translate well into the written word all the time From that she went on to some very unpleasant suggestions and quite unnecessary in her answer.

The issue was evaluation of the exams indicating where there are strengths, where there are weaknesses in the Manitoba system, what kinds of things we should be building on, what kinds of things need to be developed, what kind of professional development will emerge from this, what kind of best practices might emerge from this. Yet the minister says there is no discernible pattern, and that I find quite puzzling.

I can understand that in response to a newspaper interview at the time, it is difficult to discern the pattern, but what kind of evaluation has the department done? We have now had a series of exams in English and mathematics.

* (1530)

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

What kind of research, investigation and evaluation is prepared to look at what patterns are emerging? For example, the minister said there were no discernible patterns for example in award-winning teachers; there were no discernible patterns vis-a-vis the finance. Well, perhaps the minister did not understand what I said. She said that schools where there were award-winning teachers perhaps might not have done as expected. There was a reference to that being a criterion for the evaluation of the province-wide results and exams.

Secondly, she talked about finance, the financing of schools. It was not always the best financed schools which did the best, I think was what she was saying, and similarly socioeconomic conditions. There were not the kind of expectations that perhaps people might commonly have seen in the results.

So my sense is that some evaluation has been done and those are the criteria that have been used. I wondered if the minister had considered other criteria, for example, the size of class, the streaming into 40G or 40S. What proportion of students in each of our divisions are taking the more general course as opposed to the higher level course, and how is that having an impact on the kind of results that we have seen? So that is one area.

The other area that I had been discussing was the information provided to teachers before exams. The minister tabled the two inches of material that was provided in the English exams, but my questions were directed specifically towards the math exams. That was where the problem has arisen. That is where there has been discussion from around the province.

I went back again to the material that the minister says are part of the principles that she believes in, and those are the Principles for Fair Student Assessment Practices. I think I am now asking this for the third or fourth time, so maybe I should be very precise about this. This is page 16. It is item 6 in the Principles for Fair Student Assessement Practices. It says that users should be provided with (1) representative samples or complete copies of questions or tasks; (2) directions; (3) answer sheets; (4) score reports; (5) guidelines for interpretation and manuals.

In my discussion of this I said I understood that the minister had sent forth manuals. I was not clear that anything else had been sent forth. So I am asking very specifically now, for the math exams, and I am basing this upon the kinds of things that I understand to be the case in Alberta, where exams have been dealt with over a long period of time, where there are very clear, precise expectations of students and teachers, and they have had long experience of that. I know that in each case those things are sent out in the math and the science exams. So I am asking for comparable information from the minister for Manitoba.

Mrs. McIntosh: I do not want to prolong the sarcasm that is flowing back and forth across the room, but let us get one thing clear, and that is this, that when the member says things like, the minister is giving answers that I do not accept, she is inventing answers, and so on, that is really unpleasant also. And she can expect that she will get from me in kind what she delivers. It is not like others who might just sit back and take the tone and the implications about ministers inventing answers. That is a terrible charge to make in the middle of Estimates, to tell a minister she is inventing answers in the middle of Estimates.

I think she can expect that she will hear back from me on it, because I do not think that I should have to accept that. If she feels it is unpleasant to have her allegations called, well, I am sorry, I am not doing it to be unpleasant, I am doing it to make sure the record does not allow those kinds of allegations to stand as correct. But I also wish to indicate in terms of--maybe she is just mixing it up and not consciously doing this--but I never said that award-winning teachers were a criterion. The member said, quote, the minister has said that award-winning teachers were a criterion for evaluation. I never said that. What I said was, we could not see any discernible pattern when we first got all the marks. We could not see any discernible pattern. It did not seem to matter if it was a school with award-winning teachers, lots of money, whatever those things were. I did not say that those were criteria against which a school would be judged, which is what you came back and said that I had said. I had said in looking at them, we could not see a pattern.

We are currently exploring, looking for patterns. We have looked at things like class size. It did not seem to matter at first glance. I mean, we still are delving in because we have asked each division to present us with factors for why they think their division did the way they did, to put it in context of some of the circumstances--their building. For their division, I am saying, it could be the building; maybe the building was fiery hot, icy cold. We do not know those things, so we are asking for contextual information to help us examine. But we do not have criteria to say: this is a school with award-winning teachers; therefore, we expect this kind of result. We do not have that. We just said, we took our glance. It did not seem to matter whether it was a big class, because there were big classes that did extremely well. There were small classes that did not. There was not any one thing that we could look at that we would say in every school where students did well, this particular item was a common factor.

Now I have had it suggested to me that the quality of teaching could be the common factor. I am not discounting that. It is just that we have not seen that in terms of going out to ask divisions what they thought it was that caused their students to do well or poorly, and those we will get back.

The member would like to know what we are judging our evaluation on, and the member has asked what kind of evaluation the exams had. That is a really good question. That is a good question. It is a pertinent one. It is relevant and it is a responsible question.

What kind of evaluation? First of all, we asked all boards, and this was part of our press release too and it was public, and it has been something that I have said on the radio, wherever. We are asking school divisions to identify for us what they believe the factors were in their students' success or lack of success or regular performance, whatever factors they can identify. We have asked for the vehicle of inclusion in the process, introspective review. We can see school plans being used to incorporate addressing some of the weaknesses or strengths that were perceived as a result of the school division's own analysis of those marks for diagnostic purposes.

At the department level we are responding by providing professional development where there is a need. There are some things that are clear. All schools had the same curriculum and the same opportunity to learn and use it. All had the same backup material, and I will provide for the member. As I indicated, I had asked for a sample of the material before marks get sent out, before exams. I tabled what today happens to be the language arts. The math consultants are busy yesterday and today, but I can get the same material for the math for her. I would be pleased to do that, but I do not have it here today.

But there appears to be no causal effect even at this point that we have been able to spot between money spent and outcomes, between results and geography, between results and neighbourhoods, but we will be studying those. We are in the process of doing that in more depth to assess if there are other patterns. We will also be looking for the information sent to us by school divisions.

* (1540)

The member has two or three times implied we had not distributed sufficient or clear information in a timely fashion, but we have given good information in clear ways in a timely manner. There are some schools that may believe otherwise, one or two, that is their right but not all agree and not all school divisions wish to be included as ones that did not feel they were well prepared for the exam.

I have received several letters. The member, I hope, will not say I am inventing this because I do not think, to me, telling the minister in Estimates that she is inventing answers is the same as saying she lied. At any rate, the member does not want to use those words because they are unparliamentary, but I think telling a cabinet minister she is inventing answers in Estimates is an extremely serious allegation. Extremely serious. However, I have received letters--that is not an invention--from school divisions that were concerned that they might be seen as not wanting exams or not feeling they were well prepared for not having done well.

So I have received letters saying, we felt we were adequately informed. We felt we were given the information we required. Our students did well because we prepared them well and they were receptive to learning, and we welcome the exams. Please do not give up the initiative because some other divisions feel differently.

The member I think may have gotten those same letters also. Maybe not, but I think she probably did get copies of at least some of them. I have to indicate that with Brandon School Division, for example, we have already received some feedback from them. They indicated they felt one of the factors why their students did not do so well was because they allow any student that they think can make it take the 40S exam. Therefore, they do not have a prerequisite that they have to take 30S before 40S, so we checked into that.

I mean they put that as a factor, and indeed we looked back at the students who took 40S in Brandon. That indeed did not make a difference because their students registered in 40S. Those who had taken 30S did extremely well on the 30S, and there were only two who had not taken it. There were a whole lot of other factors. I will not go into the details, but they pointed out that they felt the reason their students did not do well was because they do not set prerequisites. Yet when we explored that in depth, and we did, we took a long time to go through that in detail, and that did not prove to hold water when the final analysis was in.

We found, exploring it in detail, that that argument did not stand, but nonetheless that whole business of how many students have taken prerequisites in 30S will certainly be a factor that we are looking at. Also, some divisions will tell you--well, the member mentioned an example of IB students who took the standards exam, who she indicated I believe and I am not sure if I heard her correctly and perhaps she can correct me if I have misheard her, I thought she said that the IB students in one of the schools had not taken the 40S but were writing from the information, the knowledge gained in the IB math. I believe that is what she said.

The International Baccalaureate math, of course, is recognized on an international standard, a more rigorous standard even than our Manitoba math. I think it would be fair to say that under the circumstances I think I heard the member describe that International Baccalaureate students writing at a Senior 4 level should not have any trouble with our own Senior 4 standards exam, because the international standards are at the post-secondary stage in terms of rigour.

That is another factor, of course, that we are looking at that, with the AP and the IB and those other factors entering into it, what impact did those have on the writing of the math exam? I come back to my sense that any student with potential, well motivated, with good curricula and dedicated teacher, will be able to reach the standard that we put forward in our Math 40S exam. So, if you have a well-motivated student with good potential working with a dedicated teacher and a good curriculum, I have high expectations for that student that there would be no need to dummy-down the standard for that student under any circumstances, because that student has every right to have expectations placed upon him or her to excel. That is what New Directions is all about.

The member made several references to Alberta. I indicate that we are always looking for ways to grow and evolve in pursuit of excellence, so we make a habit of reviewing practices of other jurisdictions where they have exams, such as Alberta. We will borrow notions and practices that fit. In fact, the whole underpinning of the western protocol embodies this. So we see North America moving in this direction. We see Canada moving in this direction. We see the western provinces and the two territories moving in concert in this direction, and it is something that we believe in as ministers, as provinces, as departments of Education, as deputies in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Yukon and Northwest Territories.

We may be ahead of the others in some respects; they may be ahead of us in other respects. But, ultimately, we have a goal, and in the very early years of the new millennium we will be doing things the same way. So it is not an ideological thing. It is not a partisan thing. It is an educational thing, because when educators look into the research--and I indicated to the member the great volumes of research that we have that supports proper assessment at the end of a learning experience. I think the member would have to agree with those writings. I did not submit the whole list that I had here the other day, but I could if the member would like it.

I just would like to conclude this question. I am hoping I have not left anything out in terms of what was asked, but I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that, just as a final indication of the types of information we have gathered, 63 percent of the students writing were enrolled in 40S. In Brandon, the comparable figure was 65 percent. So it is just a two percentage point difference between the number writing.

It is a very small difference, in fact, in light of Brandon's claim that their results were so low because they did not exclude any students from taking 40S, and if they did not exclude any students from taking 40S, the number writing was comparable within two percentage points of the entire rest of the province. So it is, again, very statistically small, and I think that is an interesting aspect.

Those are the kinds of comparisons we do when school divisions provide us with their own reasons for having done well or not done well. We will take a look and put it in the broader context and analyze it, and some, I think, will evaluate themselves very well indeed and others may not. We believe in local autonomy. We are there to help. We have offered our assistance in any way, shape, or form that we can offer it to divisions that require or feel they would like some additional help. Our math consultants for example are busy today helping divisions, helping students, making sure that the standards for math are being reached and understood and are able to be applied by students in Manitoba as we reach for world-class standards without dummying-down for students because of circumstances that some might think should merit a lessening of the standard or a lowering of expectation.

* (1550)

Ms. Friesen: Part of that answered the question: What kind of evaluation is being conducted and what criteria are being used and what is the follow-up? So I would like this time the minister to tell us when that report is going to be available on the English exams and the math exams as they have been conducted so far and perhaps to suggest to her also that the use of the IB example related to the whole tenor of my remarks, which has been that care has to be exercised in the evaluation of these results and that following the principles of the fair assessment guide that this has to be done very carefully and based upon research and not upon small samples, not upon issues where there might be particular issues that are relevant only to one or two schools.

I should draw attention to the fact that the only person who talks about the dummying down of standards is the minister. This is not the tenor of the discussion. It is not the direction of the questions that I have been asking. I do however repeat my question on what was provided as I think now is the fourth or fifth time of asking. The minister has said that she would table it, but I am puzzled as to why, with the staff that the minister has here today, there could not be a yes or no answer, and I will try again, to item 6 on page 16 of the Principles for Fair Student Assessment Practices.

My question is: In the math exams, are potential users provided with representative samples or complete copies of questions or tasks, directions, answer sheets, score reports, guidelines for interpretation?

I understand the minister cannot table them today, but my question has been quite specific in a number of areas. Again I am drawing the comparison to one of the jurisdictions which has had considerable experience and where I know that teachers find that very helpful.

Mrs. McIntosh: The staff is getting me the answer now as we talk, but I wish to indicate that we have in terms of a report of our analysis--I did not think I said we would be publishing a report. I think I said that we would be interpreting the results. We will be interpreting those results, and they will be available by early September for school divisions for Math Senior 4, English Language Arts Senior 4, French Language Arts Senior 4, and Grade 3 math. I do not think I said there would be a report released to the public. I believe I said we would interpret the results and provide them to school divisions so that they could work on building on their strengths, improving their weaknesses, et cetera. So that should be ready by early September for divisions' use, and as we do our analysis of the exam, the analysis is being done for several reasons, one for our purposes as well to make sure that the curriculum has been understood, absorbed and is able to be applied by students in Manitoba. Where we see areas of weakness we will endeavour to point that out to schools divisions so that they can take corrective measures. Where they have done well we will ask them to continue building on strengths, to continue whatever they are doing in their classroom that is right in order to help students understand some of these issues.

In terms of No. 6, to provide the potential users with representative samples or complete copies of questions or tasks, directions, answer sheets, score reports, guidelines for interpretation and manuals. As I indicate, the math consultants are in the field this week. They are not here.

Just because you said with the staff I have here, the math consultants are not here, I have the head of the Assessment and Evaluation branch, but the math consultants are not with us these two days. They might have been earlier or later, but they are not in town. They are not with us right now. However, in answer to the question, we do give teachers complete sets of answers. We give the complete set of answer keys. We give them the complete set of scoring rubrics after every test. They have the information on that at each sitting, like, as they go into it and as they prepare for the marking.

We get more years of data. As we get more years of data, we will be in a position to do a comparative analysis. We do not have a lot of old exams as I indicated to the member because exams are still relatively new. We did provide, in our pilot years, detailed sample questions which we had indicated would still be the right questions to use, like sample questions had been provided to teachers in earlier years, and the tests that had been written become immediately public domain. The exemplar papers, the interpretive comments on test results and the administration manuals are all made available to teachers prior to examinations and on this exam as well. Through the Manitoba Textbook Bureau you can get the old exams that do exist, even though there are not that many right now, and the sample questions that we provided them and we likened it to the pilot exam providing detailed sample questions for the piloting years with an indication that those were the kinds of sample questions that could continue to be used in subsequent years once it came off status. Those sample questions are all there and available and many teachers used them.

Many teachers using the sample questions from earlier years devised new and innovative questions of their own based upon the way in which they were teaching. We do give the answers and questions. We give the answer keys. We have provided representative samples in earlier years, and they have been told at the time those could continue to be used--our newest developed based on that. Many teachers did that--many. The previous exams, et cetera, et cetera, were available to teachers and sources easily available to them, known to them and in fact this is written right down in our Fair Assessment criteria--the member says she has this. If she has it, she will see that in point 6, right beside it, you have that very wording, that all this material is in the Manitoba Textbook Bureau, easily accessible. It is available. It is readily available and teachers know that. It is provided to them through the government of Manitoba, through that SOA.

I do not know what more I could say to that except to say I will get her the information she has asked for which is--I believe you want to see a package similar to what we have given for the LA exam that we sent out before the LA exam for mathematics, for the mathematics exam. We can get that for the member, but we cannot give it right now. Can we enter it into the record after the fact, Mr. Chairman, in terms of procedure? If we have material that we would like to table and Estimates are complete, can we indicate that it will be sent in or brought forward for the record? We will provide it for both 40S and 40G and Grade 3.

* (1600)

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee that this be tabled at a later time and be put in Hansard. Agreed? [agreed]

Mrs. McIntosh: I think that concludes my response to that question, Mr. Chairman. We will provide that. We will not be able to today, but we can have it here tomorrow and will table that information for the member and for the record.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask about the special education review. The minister and I have exchanged discussion on this in private members' hour--and I do not want to repeat that--but I would like to ask when the work plan will be available for the special needs review.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the work plan went out to school divisions on May 29.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, would the minister table that work plan?

Mrs. McIntosh: I would be pleased to table it. I have a copy here that I can table, and I am pleased to do that. I will just check for scribbles, if I may, to make sure I have a clean copy for you. I think it is clean.

Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask about the relationship of the ADAP which has been done for the last number of years and which the minister tabled last year to the special needs review. I have not seen the work plan so I cannot say what is on the paper there, but it seems to me that the material that the minister tabled last year was a compilation of the ADAP material from each school division, and it was unclear from those submissions as to what action was taken by the department.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

I would say, and I do not have them in front of me, unfortunately, but I would say that the summary, ADAP, that had taken place in the past year, the most immediate one was extremely general and differed from earlier ones. There seemed to be much more specific information in earlier ones than in the more recent one, and I wondered if the department had some new plan for collecting that kind of information and whether there was something that was in transition here. There did seem to be a marked difference to me.

The second part of that really is where does this fit into the special needs review? Not the compilation which really is very much of a brief bird's eye view of what is happening over the province, but the next stage from that which presumably have been an evaluation--here are the strengths, here are the weaknesses, here are places where people are having problems, here are areas where we might need professional development. Those kinds of things were not submitted last year. Now, does such an evaluation report on the state of the province's special needs issues exist, or is it merely the compilation that the minister presented last time?

Mrs. McIntosh: In the last two years, the divisions have only been asked to provide updates on program changes and not a whole new plan. So what we are getting is essentially still the existing plan which we do not get, but the existing plan is in place with updates being presented, so we are only getting the updates. We are only seeing the changes.

Ms. Friesen: What has been the practice on the receipt of the information and the preparation of that tabula form that the minister tabled last time? Is there a next step that has said X and Y are doing fine, A and B need assistance, is the best practice emerging here? What has the province done with those five years--I think it is five years now--of information on special needs across the province?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, what we do is we acknowledge each divisions ADAP, and then we will take note of any areas of difficulty or problems or any place where we think people might require some help, and we will send people out in the field to work with them to help improve those areas. We have had a very positive response to the articulation of programing from the field, and this year we will be asking for additional information on the ADAP because of the special needs review so that we can better inform them on the Special Education Review Committee in terms of detail. What we have been doing is just simply acknowledging the ADAP, identifying areas where we are needed and then by our presence providing the support that divisions might need to provide the best service for these students.

The Annual Division Action Plans will be reviewed in order to determine the provincial picture, as well as if further information is required from divisions, it may be possible to revise the ADAP to accommodate additional data collection. If it cannot be collected in this manner, a follow-up survey to school divisions will be conducted. We will be getting more detail, we require more detail on the divisional picture to finalize the provincial sampling frame. We hope to, as I say, accommodate that additional data through the ADAP, or if not through that, then a follow-up survey.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I notice in the work plan that the minister has tabled that it says the review will be conducted over an 18- to 24-month period, and I am not clear from the context of when that 18-month-24-month period began, so I am concerned about that. It was mentioned in the throne speech, and I think the minister has reiterated this on more than one occasion that the final report will be in her hands by the end of the year.

I guess as a subset of that I am interested by the relationship between all the information that has been collected over the years, the ADAP material that we have been talking about, which has identified special education programs and services across the province, which I understand from what the minister has been saying has looked at effectiveness and student outcomes, may not have looked at cost-effectiveness, but much of the basic information that is identified as the first area of inquiry for this review would seem to be contained in that ADAP material. So it is timing. Is this repeating something that has already been done or is it materials that are going to feed into what is to be done?

* (1610)

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mrs. McIntosh: The ADAP has been a program description, so no outcomes are reported or dollars expended reported by program. It is a program description.

In terms of the progress of the special needs review, we expect to have a progress report by the end of this year, but it will not be a final report. It will be a progress report. I know I have said 18 to 24 months, and I am still utilizing that figure. I cannot say whether it will be 18 or 24 because we have consciously tried to leave the end date as open as we could, simply because we do not know how long it is going to take the people to complete their task. We have said to them 18 to 24 months to try to give them a sense of the time period in which we think it can be accomplished.

We want to avoid two things. We do not want to leave it so open-ended that they could study for 10 years, never giving us a report. We want to hear back from them within 18 to 24 months from when they started their work. At the same time we do not want to be so constrictive and so constraining that they have got six to eight months and they have to be done by a certain deadline, so they rush through it and do not do as thorough a job as we would like or they might like to be able to do. So we are getting an interim report at the end of 1997. At that time I should be able to give a much better prediction as to how much more time is required.

The committee has been at it now for six, seven months, I am not sure, looking back on the calendar, but let us say half a year to be approximately correct. They have been at it for about half a year, so we are looking at another, possibly, year and a half, or a little less, before we finally have final recommendations. I know I would love to be able to say this date or the end of a certain month, but I am so conscious of not wanting to tie the hands of the people doing this work because to me it is amongst the most important initiative we have taken.

I will just indicate the areas of inquiry. I think the member will probably get a sense of how difficult it is to project how long it might take to do this type of work. The identification portion probably is not as time consuming because the information is there, but as they begin to explore some of the nuances of it, it could become a more time-consuming task.

We asked them to identify first what special programs and services are currently being provided throughout the province. If it is just a simple listing that is one thing, but if they probe, that could be a much more detailed kind of response which could add a month or two to their deliberations. What delivery models are being used? How do these respond to the needs and strengths of students, are the programs and service models compatible with provincial policies, how do programs and service delivery models correspond to best practices as described by current research, how appropriate and effective are the current provincial service delivery requirements and expectations? That would include the ADAPs the member referred to in her question.

In what areas and to what degree should schools and districts and divisions have flexibility in programming and service delivery? What are the implications for setting public policy? Just a whole series of questions, they go on. I will not read them all, because then I will be taking extra time, too. There are a whole series for areas of inquiry and for the examination of special education policies, practices and procedures. If the member takes a look in the Special Ed Report or in that work plan, rather, that I provided her, she may see some of these things listed.

Each of those can be expanded to take longer or constrained to take less time, so that is what I mean when I say, I am not sure. About a year and a half is the amount of time that could be left. Maybe it will be done sooner. I have also indicated to them that if at any point along the way they are able to come up with a recommendation and there is sort of a stand-alone recommendation that could be made before the final review is complete that they could give that to me as a final recommendation in their interim reports.

For example, it could be that at the end of this year, 1997, we get our progress report, that we might also get a final recommendation on certain items that could be dealt with in a short time frame. So if you have got some final early recommendations, let us know them and we will begin to work on them right away. Where they are implementable, we will begin to do that even before the review is complete if it is something that is able to stand alone, independent of the bigger picture.

As far as the ADAPs, they were never meant to achieve all of that. They are only a piece of background data. We have asked them to look at how appropriate and effective they are in terms of the role that they play.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I notice in the detailed work plan that the final report completed is promised for September 30, 1998. This does not seem to accord with the discussion in the throne speech or the indication that the minister has given beforehand. I understand the need for some flexibility, but my experience of reports from any government is that the chance that they are later than usual is quite high. When you get a committee of people together, you have always got difficulties. You have got problems of translation, you have got problems of meetings, unexpected weather issues, all those kinds of things.

September 30, 1998, is a lot later I think than people had anticipated this review would be completed. I wonder if the minister could give us a sense of whether that is an absolute extended deadline. Does she really anticipate that it will be in in January or February and that this is sort of giving as much rope as possible? I am, quite frankly, surprised that it is that late.

* (1620)

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I indicate that the time line that the government has given the steering committee has been 18 to 24 months. We have said 18 to 24 months is the amount of time that we are saying that we think it may take you to do this review, but we have also said repeatedly, both publicly and to the people doing the review, that while we can suggest time lines and we can say, take 18 to 24 months, we have also said more important than any time line is that we get a good report. So, if in your deliberations you set a target date, as they have done--they have set a target date for themselves of September 30, 1998, which is their target date for their work plan, and it is really not that far off in terms of 18 to 24 months from the beginning of the work that we identified.

We have said that, if you need extra time or if you could have it done sooner, that is great. You know, if it comes together quickly for you and you have got the relevant information and it is there, then by all means give it to us as soon as it is ready. Do not hold off because somebody expected you to have to take longer and might want to take longer. Similarly, if you think you are going to need extra months to complete it, take the time, if you think you are going to need it. Do not push it just to meet a date.

We have asked for interim reports, and they will be presenting us interim reports, with final recommendations that we can implement along the way if they are stand-alone recommendations. With each interim report we will have a clearer understanding as to when the final report will be ready. I would imagine that, as with a lot of things, you may see adjustments in time lines as they go through. They have presented their target dates, their own expectations as to how long they expect things to take, but they may be able to do it faster or they may need a little bit longer. That is all right with us. Our goal is to have a good, good review.

It is still within a framework of time. We are talking about something we hope will stand the test of time for decades to come, and it has been about 20 years that the province has waited for this review. We hope it will stand the test of time in terms of principles that are laid down for many years to come hereafter. So, if their date is September '98, and that is the date they think that they need, then I can accept that.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chair, I notice that the draft plan, the work plan, has been sent to the Federation of Independent Schools. Could the minister tell us how they will be involved in this review?

Mrs. McIntosh: In the same way that all other schools will be involved--special needs students in all schools. I mean, we send it all schools. Not all public schools have special needs students, but they have still got the report. Many of our independent schools have special needs students. Some have a higher percentage of special needs students than they do of nonspecial needs students. In fact, one is completely special needs students. The Laureate Academy is completely special needs students. So they are being sent it because they have special needs students, and those special needs students require services and so on in the separate system as they do in the public system. The funding they receive for their special needs students is the same funding that the public schools receive, and they will participate as any schools do.

Ms. Friesen: The work plan indicates that there is going to be some case studies and provincial sampling. When samples are used, they may not include independent schools depending upon the basis upon which the sample is taken. It is talking here about divisions, districts and communities--urban, rural and northern communities.

It does not exclude the independent schools, but there is no guarantee in sampling that they are going to be included, and presumably once sampling has taken place, there are no names and no identifiers attached. How is the minister intending to assure us that independent schools are included in the review?

Mrs. McIntosh: I think, Mr. Chairman, to do proper sampling you cannot take out a--unless you are going to sample the two systems. The fact is there are the same number of Level I students in independent schools as there are in public schools. There are handicapped children in wheelchairs. There are mentally disabled students in both systems. There are many public schools that are free from Level II and Level III students. There are many independent schools that include Level II and Level III students. So I do not think it is going to make that much difference.

First of all, on a percentage basis, we have some 12,000 students in independent schools versus 180,000 students in public schools. Most of our urban school divisions are bigger than the total population of independent school students in the entire province, and they are scattered all about. The independent schools are in remote settings. They are in small country towns. They are in the city. They are pretty evenly dispersed in terms of being there. I think to do a proper sampling we have to assume that students and schools are not that much different from one school to another.

There is a stratified sampling process that can be used to ensure representative grouping, so that it may be that some independent schools will be sampled, but even if that is not the case, they will be included with other data gatherings. I mean, a review of the work plan, if you take a look at it, shows a number of data collection methodologies and opportunities for consultation. This will not be the only way in which information is gathered.

* (1630)

So while you could exclude them or do a separate sampling using a stratified sampling process and all of the other data collection methodologies, I think we will get a pretty clear picture of what is happening in Manitoba. I mean, we could take a look at the Laureate Academy, for example, and this may be something the member is referring to, where all students in the school--it is an independent school--are special needs students, and that school sampled would certainly show a much higher percentage of special needs. Well, the whole population in that school is special needs. So it would certainly show up differently than, say, the neighbouring public school, which has mostly nonspecial needs students. But still those students are all in the system. They are all requiring service. Wherever they are, they exist.

I do not know if that answers the member's question. It is a good question, but I am just curious if maybe she could indicate the relevance. Why would the independent schools need to be sampled out? I am not quite sure I understand why they would have to be separated out when they are, after all, a school.

Ms. Friesen: On a point of order. My question was not sampling out. But in fact the question was very specifically: How are they to be sampled in?

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Our Rule 64.1 (3) provides that where the time limit has expired, the Chairperson shall forthwith put all remaining questions necessary to dispose of the matter and such questions shall not be subject to debate, amendment or adjournment.

I am, therefore, going to call in sequence the questions on the following matters: Department of Education and Training, Resolution 16.1 to 16.7 and capital supply resolutions. I would remind members that the questions may not be debated, amended or adjourned according to the Rules of the House.

Resolution 16.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,639,100 for Education and Training, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Resolution 16.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $24,076,500 for Education and Training, School Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Resolution 16.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,388,300 for Education and Training, Bureau de l'éducation française, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Resolution 16.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $643,696,800 for Education and Training, Support to Schools, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Resolution 16.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $24,330,100 for Education and Training, Training and Continuing Education, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Resolution 16.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $294,664,400 for Education and Training, Support for Post-Secondary Education, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Resolution 16.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $34,742,300 for Education and Training, Expenditures Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Supply Resolution: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,267,000 for Capital Supply for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998.

This concludes our consideration of the Estimates in this section of the Committee of Supply. I would like to thank the minister and the critics for their co-operation. Committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.